On Fri, 7 Jan 2011, Siarhei Siamashka wrote:
> I would suggest to generally forbid using the same pixman_image_t from
> multiple
> threads, but also add a function for creating pixman_image_t clone, which
> would share the pixel buffer with the original image and track pixel buffer
> lifetime vi
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Søren Sandmann wrote:
> From: Søren Sandmann Pedersen
>
> Introduce a new ITER_LOCALIZED_ALPHA flag that indicates that the
> alpha value computed is used only for the alpha channel of the output;
> it doesn't affect the RGB channels.
>
> Then in pixman-bits-image.
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 3:28 AM, Søren Sandmann wrote:
> From: Søren Sandmann Pedersen
>
> When fetching from destinations, we need to ignore transformations,
> repeat and filtering. Currently we don't ignore them, which means all
> kinds of bad things can happen.
>
> This bug fixes this problem b
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Søren Sandmann wrote:
> From: Søren Sandmann Pedersen
>
> They are not used anymore, and the linear gradient is now doing the
> optimization in a different way.
> ---
> pixman/pixman-image.c | 14 --
> pixman/pixman-linear-gradient.c | 28
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Soeren Sandmann wrote:
> Søren Sandmann writes:
>
>> The following patch series changes the scanline access to be based on
>> iterators instead of direct calls to virtual functions. There are
>> several benefits to this:
It also provides a natural place to initial
On Tuesday 04 January 2011 23:47:02 Soeren Sandmann wrote:
> Siarhei Siamashka writes:
> > -MAKE_FETCHERS (none_r5g6b5, r5g6b5, PIXMAN_REPEAT_NONE);
> > -MAKE_FETCHERS (reflect_r5g6b5, r5g6b5, PIXMAN_REPEAT_REFLECT);
> > -MAKE_FETCHERS (normal_r5g6b5,r5g6b5, PIXMAN_REPEAT_NORMAL);
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Siarhei Siamashka
wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 January 2011 16:33:18 Andrea Canciani wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Andrea Canciani wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Siarhei Siamashka
>> >> I just wonder if it would be difficult to add a test to p
On Tuesday 04 January 2011 16:33:18 Andrea Canciani wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Andrea Canciani wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Siarhei Siamashka
> >> I just wonder if it would be difficult to add a test to pixman for this
> >> particular division by zero case? Or is it s
On Wednesday 05 January 2011 00:04:14 Soeren Sandmann wrote:
> There are really two separate things to consider: The first is which
> thread-related guarantees will pixman give? Adding atomic refcounts
> would add a new guarantee that multiple threads can do ref/unref
> simultaneously without causi
