| Re: [AD] DO_PARALLELOGRAM_MAP again |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
>
> Well, color and memfile addons also consist of one relatively small
> file each, so I don't think size alone should decide this. Many
high
> primitives functions seem to me to be somewhat esoteric utility
> functions... you could say that they are to allegro core as libGLU
is
> to libGL.
>
> I don't feel too strongly about that, however.
>
> Incidentally, do these recent changes make that scaled bitmap test
that
> Elias originally complained about pass? It'd be kind of silly if it
> still fails...
>
That particular test works with the replacement function I committed
into ex_blend_bench. It even works if I change the scale from 200 to
2000. But that's all I tested. Is there something specific which you
think may make it perform in a smaller range than GPU implementations?
Hmm... well, to answer that I'd need to know the GPU implementation
range. I think 4096 is the largest bitmap size I remember being
supported.
But anyway, I was thinking of three things:
First, I haven't looked at whether I use the floating point "correctly"
(in terms of avoiding adding floating point numbers of vastly different
magnitudes) in the triangle drawer.
Second, Peter added some al_fixed variables to the scanline
rasterizers. That limits us to bitmaps of under 32768 px width/length.
I don't even know if the GPU's can handle bitmaps that big though, so
it probably isn't a problem.
Third, I just wanted that test to be done first, hehe.
-SiegeLord