Running "lowlevel-blt-bench over_n_" on Playstation3 3.2GHz,
Gentoo ppc (32-bit userland) gave the following results:
before: over_n_ = L1: 147.47 L2: 205.86 M:121.07
after: over_n_ = L1: 287.27 L2: 261.09 M:133.48
Signed-off-by: Siarhei Siamashka
On Thu, 03 Sep 2015 13:59:07 +0100
"Ben Avison" wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Sep 2015 11:13:25 +0100, Pekka Paalanen
> wrote:
> > D'oh, of course, that's why Oded didn't see a segfault. But he did say
> > the CRC does not match on PPC64, neither LE nor BE.
>
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 20:35:59 +0100
> Ben Avison wrote:
>
>> This test aims to verify both numerical correctness and the honouring of
>> array bounds for scaled plots (both nearest-neighbour and
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 12:04:00 +0300
Oded Gabbay wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 20:35:59 +0100
> > Ben Avison wrote:
> >
> >> This test aims to verify both numerical
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:39:00 +0300
Siarhei Siamashka wrote:
> Running "lowlevel-blt-bench over_n_" on Playstation3 3.2GHz,
> Gentoo ppc (32-bit userland) gave the following results:
>
> before: over_n_ = L1: 147.47 L2: 205.86 M:121.07
> after:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 11:18:03 +0100, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
I think we may have a problem with sizes/coordinates.
With 64 kB page size, the minimum fenced image width for r5g6b5 image
is 32768 pixels. GDB tells me src_img->bits.width << 16 is negative.
Similarly the minimum
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 18:29:59 +0300
Oded Gabbay wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Ben Avison wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 13:45:48 +0100, Oded Gabbay
> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [exposing general_composite_rect]
> >>> I