On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 09:56:44 +0100 Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 April 2016 at 19:12, Bill Spitzak <spit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The old code is comparing pixman_fixed_48_16_t values to > > pixman_fixed_16_16_t values, thus it is checking for truncation of overflow > > values. > > > Indeed it does. I'll grep more before asking silly questions ;-) > > > It would probably be better to clamp these overflowed values, like > > pixman_transform_point_31_16 is doing to clamp to the pixman_fixed_48_16 > > result. Right now the result is an odd mix of clamping and modulus. A > > rewrite to go directly to clamped pixman_fixed_16_16 values would be even > > better. > > > Sounds like a plan. Sadly I doubt I'll get to it any time soon. Wasn't the point of the boolean return from these functions to tell the caller to drop what it is doing because it cannot be done properly? Thanks, pq
pgpNzBgYOtAKQ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pixman mailing list Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
