| Re: [AD] Optimized rotation routine |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Sven Sandberg wrote:
> What do you think?
I think not including it is the right way as long as you manage to put it
in an addon. Besides, I couldn't see anything of the test, it just showed
numbers and a few pixels in the top left corner of the screen. Hopefully I
am doing something wrong and the test is more impressive :)
I had to remove the random.c file, it gave lot's of problem because it
redefined functions in stdlib.h.
> I also have a technical question: The old version
> checks if a pixel is transparent by comparing it with
> `bmp->vtable->mask_color'. Is there any reason not to
> use the MASK_COLOR_* constant, ie. can they be
> different? It's of course much faster to use the
> constant.
I belive the vtable->mask_color is used when you are writting a generic
algorithm which doesn't care about bitmap's color depth, ie: you still
haven't written the usual branched switch for color depth optimization, or
it doesn't improve it significantly. You could use it in your switch's
default branch, just in case.
--
Grzegorz Adam Hankiewicz gradha@xxxxxxxxxx http://gradha.infierno.org