nanogui: blitting with more than 8bpp


Previous by date: 7 Jan 2000 17:51:24 -0000 Re: blitting with more than 8bpp, Greg Haerr
Next by date: 7 Jan 2000 17:51:24 -0000 Re: blitting with more than 8bpp - WHOOPS, Greg Haerr
Previous in thread: 7 Jan 2000 17:51:24 -0000 Re: blitting with more than 8bpp, Greg Haerr
Next in thread:

Subject: Re: blitting with more than 8bpp
From: Alistair Riddoch ####@####.####
Date: 7 Jan 2000 17:51:24 -0000
Message-Id: <20000107185756.A16304@impulse.ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 10:38:17AM -0700, Greg Haerr wrote:
> :I missed the fact that dst and
> : src are pointers to shorts. So, my original patch was wrong. But, the
> : initialization of these two pointers do not appear to consider the bpp
> : correctly. Here's a patch that seems to work.
> : 
> : --- fblin16.c   Fri Jan  7 05:59:41 2000
> : +++ fblin16.c.orig      Fri Jan  7 05:56:06 2000
> : @@ -133,8 +133,8 @@
> :         assert (srcy+h <= srcpsd->yres);
> : 
> :         DRAWON;
> : -       dst = dstpsd->addr + (dstx + dsty * dlinelen)*2;
> : -       src = srcpsd->addr + (srcx + srcy * slinelen)*2;
> : +       dst = dstpsd->addr + dstx + dsty * dlinelen;
> : +       src = srcpsd->addr + srcx + srcy * slinelen;
> :         while(--h >= 0) {
> 
> Kyle - I'm a little confused here.  My source already matches
> your patch "+'" lines.  Your original source doesn't match.
> Perhaps you should check your fblin16.c with the most recent
> sources (any 0.87pre2 or pre3)

It looks as though the patch was generated backwards from the header
(fblin16.c -> fblin16.c.orig).

The lines with + are the original, the - lines are the updated ones.

Al

Previous by date: 7 Jan 2000 17:51:24 -0000 Re: blitting with more than 8bpp, Greg Haerr
Next by date: 7 Jan 2000 17:51:24 -0000 Re: blitting with more than 8bpp - WHOOPS, Greg Haerr
Previous in thread: 7 Jan 2000 17:51:24 -0000 Re: blitting with more than 8bpp, Greg Haerr
Next in thread:


Powered by ezmlm-browse 0.20.