From: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paala...@collabora.co.uk> Hi,
this is a retake of Ben Avison's series starting with http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pixman/2015-March/003506.html Of that series, the first patch has landed. Here I am replacing patches 3 and 4. Patch 2 is included in my series as is, with my R-b added. I am leaving patch 5 of that series for a bit later, including some other clean-ups to lowlevel-blt-bench. The point of my series is to try and take into accout Søren's review comments from http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pixman/2014-October/003457.html particularly: > ================================================================== > 0002: lowlevel parse Needs work > 0003: affine benchmarker Needs work > ================================================================== > > Both of these could benefit from taking the support for > format/operator parsing and printing in check-format.c and moving it > to utils.[ch], perhaps extended to deal with strings like 'none' etc. > > Also some coding style issues. (Use a typedef for structs, don't > define a struct on a single line, braces around statements that span > multiple lines -- see CODING_STYLE for more information. This series tries to do just that: move the parsing/printing code to utils and extend it to be usable from lowlevel-blt-bench. Apart from restructuring, there is one significant(?) difference to Ben's patches: for a solid mask, Ben used a8r8g8b8, but my code uses a8. I hope this is fine in general, but should we also add a condition, that if a test has CA flag and a solid mask, then that mask needs to be a8r8g8b8? None of the existing tests has a solid mask for CA tests. I'm not sure how much it makes sense. I have tested this series with the usual 'make check' after each commit, plus verified that the output of check-formats (the lists of operators and formats) is the same before and after. This series allows to attempt even impossible tests like src_8888_n. A solid destination is obviously nonsense, and triggers a segfault: pixman_image_composite32 general_composite_rect dest_write_back_narrow NULL function pointer To me it seems that Pixman does not validate its arguments well enough, but that's off-topic here. I don't think this kind of validation would belong in lowlevel-blt-bench but libpixman itself. Ben, when we eventually get to the actual optimization patches, I expect I will reproduce the benchmarks myself while reviewing. Is that ok? What do you think of this series? Thanks, pq Ben Avison (1): test: Move format and operator string functions to utils.[ch] Pekka Paalanen (6): test/utils: support operator name aliases test/utils: support format name aliases test/utils: add operator aliases for lowlevel-blt-bench test/utils: add format aliases used by lowlevel-blt-bench lowlevel-blt-bench: add test name parser and self-test lowlevel-blt-bench: use the test pattern parser test/check-formats.c | 192 ------------------- test/lowlevel-blt-bench.c | 295 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- test/utils.c | 463 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- test/utils.h | 12 ++ 4 files changed, 608 insertions(+), 354 deletions(-) -- 2.0.5 _______________________________________________ Pixman mailing list Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
