[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
- To: alleg-developers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [AD] minor issues
- From: Chris <chris.kcat@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:04:00 -0800
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=I5X+W8b/a6uMiIT8aJ4z3S+msJpV9Tg+Zi0OF/lKSuQ7arpTSfAqBPAmg6S4/0IVpf5EDc38MksgzHHhwTenbwb0X4Ko48Ec9C2yHYxVw4a5LA4itaKQwipRJ+jYQUEy6cqUO5ZPP+X/nGyNEnthS2V+Hd+tre8q4Qd5UZhLkNw=
aj wrote:
if memory bitmaps are to be made solid (zero extra bytes to make pitch 4
or 8 byte boundarys) than SSE1,2,3 code will be far more difficult.
Most memory bitmap sizes are probably 4/8-byte aligned already. A simple
check (which would evaluate true in most cases) would be fine there.
Also all 32-bit bitmaps would implicitly be on a 4-byte boundary.
is there any reason to be
concerned with using a few extra bytes per line to achieve 4 or 8 byte
boundarys.
Yes, IMO, because too much existing code relies on memory bitmaps to be
"solid" with no breaks. Though again, system and video bitmaps are a
different story.