I think the code is good to go, but could you create an automated test
case for this? It should be easy to render a simple shape to a rendered
image and verify that the last scanline was touched, no?
...jim
On 3/10/2011 11:06 AM, Denis Lila wrote:
Hi Jim.
Yes, that was the point of my original question. I was asking how you
felt about the dead code, apologies that it took so long to get on the
same page. I don't have a strong opinion there, I was just making you
aware that there was more dead code. Another option would be to move
just the switch statement into a secondary shared function which might
be small enough not to trigger that compiler bug.
But, I'll leave those decisions up to you. I was just pointing out
that
you missed some potentially dead code...
Oh, I see. Well, I wasn't aware of it before you asked, so thanks
for pointing it out. I guess I'll remove it.
As for moving the switch in its own function, I think the compiler
would just inline it and then we'd be in the same spot.
Shall I push?
Thank you,
Denis.
----- Original Message -----
Hi Denis,
...jim
On 3/10/2011 6:38 AM, Denis Lila wrote:
[Resending due to bounces...]
On 3/9/2011 5:56 AM, Denis Lila wrote:
lines 1002& 1083 - can breaking points of a cubic generate quad
segments and vice versa?
No, the functions that generate the offset curves can only
return a line or a curve of the same degree as the curve
whose offset they're generating.
Then why does the code to handle the opposing curve type exist in
these
functions?
...jim
Because everything was copied from somethingTo, which had to handle
both types of curves, and I applied constant propagation and dead
code elimination very mechanically for fear or breaking something.
Should I remove the cases that never execute?
Regards,
Denis.
