On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:18:50 -0400 Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
(B
(B> On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 09:02:32AM +1000, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
(B> > though i've said it before, xrender really should be an easily accessible 2d
(B> > subset of opengl and pixel-exact rendering as it defines limits the ability
(B> > to accelerate it - either with tricks in software (by losing 1 bit of
(B> > precision you can double the speed in some cases), or with hardware. what
(B> > people want to see IMHO is fast redraw of blended/scaled objects on things
(B> > like the desktop or within web browsers etc. but if it isn't fast there's
(B> > going to be a big resistance in migrating to use it.
(B>
(B> I thought render gave the client the option of requesting or
(B> explicitly disabling pixel-exact rendering, according to what the
(B> client needs.
(B
(Bto the best of my knowledge, no. i remember it being discussed, but keith was
(Bvery particular on a client being able to depend on the exact output of render
(Bso software and hardware/render routines could match. i can't find anything in
(Bthe api that seems to indicate that you can hint saying "ok - no need to be
(Bexact. close enough is good enough" unless you mean the scaling filters (which
(Bhave generic names like "fast" "good" "best" as well as "bilienar" and
(B"nearest"), but that's about it.
(B
(B
(B--
(B--------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------------
(BThe Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
$B7'<*(B - $Bhttp://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
