On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 8:28 AM, <spit...@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Bill Spitzak <spit...@gmail.com> > > Due to normalization these filters must all be identical (a single 1.0). > > Also make IMPULSE.IMPULSE produce a width=1 filter, rather than zero > (which did not work). > > v7: Replaced earlier tests for BOX.IMPULSE > v10: Moved code to filter_width function > > Signed-off-by: Bill Spitzak <spit...@gmail.com> > --- > pixman/pixman-filter.c | 8 +++++++- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/pixman/pixman-filter.c b/pixman/pixman-filter.c > index 10fa398..520ce92 100644 > --- a/pixman/pixman-filter.c > +++ b/pixman/pixman-filter.c > @@ -341,7 +341,13 @@ static int > filter_width(pixman_kernel_t reconstruct, pixman_kernel_t sample, > double* size, int* subsample_bits) > { > - return ceil (filters[reconstruct].width + *size * filters[sample].width); > + int width = ceil (filters[reconstruct].width + *size * > filters[sample].width); > + if (width <= 1) > + { > + width = 1; > + *subsample_bits = 0; > + } > + return width; > } > > /* Create the parameter list for a SEPARABLE_CONVOLUTION filter > -- > 1.9.1 > > _______________________________________________ > Pixman mailing list > Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
I would need to see some form of test/example that is affected by this patch, as I don't have the knowledge to even ACK it. Otherwise, you will need to get someone else to review this (Soren ?). Oded _______________________________________________ Pixman mailing list Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman