On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Soeren Sandmann <[email protected]> wrote: > Dmitri Vorobiev <[email protected]> writes: > >> > Recently, there was a debate about using floating-point hardware >> > for a Pixman implementation instead of the fixed point code. In >> > our company, we have developed an FPU-based implementation of the >> > core pixel pipeline, including support for all pixel formats and >> > combiners, and I am now working on the resulted code to make the >> > latter upstreamable. The patch series that follows is the first >> > outcome of this work. >> >> I think it's worth mentioning explicitly that this patch series isn't >> the whole implementation, which we have here. I'm going to post more >> code in the coming days. However, following the "release early, >> release often"-motto, I decided to share now that part that is ready >> at this moment. > > First, thanks for doing this work. I think a floating point pixel > pipeline is a very useful thing to have. I also appreciate the patches > going to the list early.
Soeren, thank you for your comments. > > As a practical matter, it would be useful at least for me if you can > publish a git repository containing this work. Realistically, this > floating point pipeline likely won't be ready for 0.20, so there will > be some rebasing necessary. Well, currently I don't think I have a good server where I could keep the Git repository. I am working with a local tree here and am trying to keep up with the master branch, merging and rebasing as soon as I notice new commits there. However, I could of course use some public services such as Github, and I'll see what I can do. As for the rest of the comments, I believe that Jonathan, who is the original author of the FPU implementation, would have more appropriate answers. Dmitri _______________________________________________ Pixman mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
