2013/6/5 Rico Schüller <kgbric...@web.de>
> On 05.06.2013 08:48, Christian Costa wrote:
>
>> bone = &This->bones[bone_num];
>> + /* Decrement refcounts of vertices previously influenced */
>> + for (i = 0; i < bone->num_influences; i++)
>> + if (bone->vertices[i] < This->num_vertices) /* Ignore out of
>> range value */
>> + This->vertices_refcounts[bone-**>vertices[i]]--;
>> bone->num_influences = num_influences;
>> HeapFree(GetProcessHeap(), 0, bone->vertices);
>> HeapFree(GetProcessHeap(), 0, bone->weights);
>> bone->vertices = new_vertices;
>> bone->weights = new_weights;
>> + /* Increment refcounts of vertices newly influenced */
>> + for (i = 0; i < bone->num_influences; i++)
>> + {
>> + if (bone->vertices[i] < This->num_vertices) /* Ignore out of
>> range value */
>> + This->vertices_refcounts[bone-**>vertices[i]]--;
>> + }
>>
>
> Please have a look at the code style (brackets {} at the for loops?). It
> should be a bit more consistent. Also I think an increment (as said in the
> comment) is something like "This->vertices_refcounts[**
> bone->vertices[i]]++;".
>
Oups! It's the wrong patch. I will send an updated version. Thanks!
>
> Maybe you could add a test to verify if the comment or the code is correct?
>
Ok. I'll add a basic skinning test. I need one anyway. Vertices skinning is
ok but normals one does not look the same as native.
Christian
