Re: [Pixman] [PATCH] test: Add cover-test v5

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:11:07 +0100 > "Ben Avison" wrote: > >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:16:22 +0100, Pekka Paalanen >> wrote: >> > Changes in v5: >> > Skip if fenced memory

Re: [Pixman] [PATCH] test: Add cover-test v5

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 12:47:34 +0300 Oded Gabbay wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:11:07 +0100 > > "Ben Avison" wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:16:22 +0100, Pekka

Re: [Pixman] [PATCH] test: Add cover-test v5

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:11:07 +0100 "Ben Avison" wrote: > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:16:22 +0100, Pekka Paalanen > wrote: > > Changes in v5: > > Skip if fenced memory is not supported. > > OK, I see how you've done that - fence_get_page_size()

Re: [Pixman] [PATCH] test: Add cover-test

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. >

Re: [Pixman] [PATCH] test: Add cover-test

On Thu, 03 Sep 2015 13:59:07 +0100 "Ben Avison" wrote: > On Thu, 03 Sep 2015 11:13:25 +0100, Pekka Paalanen > wrote: > > Unless, you go and change the implementation meaning of Pixman's cover > > flags which, reading your other reply, is what you

Re: [Pixman] [PATCH] test: Add cover-test

On Wed, 02 Sep 2015 20:15:26 +0100 "Ben Avison" wrote: > On Wed, 02 Sep 2015 12:56:40 +0100, Pekka Paalanen > wrote: > > Right. I looked at fast_bilinear_cover_iter_init() and > > fast_fetch_bilinear_cover() -> fetch_horizontal(), and yes, that

Re: [Pixman] [PATCH] test: Add cover-test

On Wed, 02 Sep 2015 20:34:56 +0100 "Ben Avison" wrote: > On Wed, 02 Sep 2015 14:03:01 +0100, Pekka Paalanen > wrote: > > I am still a tiny bit struggling with why 31 and not 32, but it does > > add up. > > Maybe the reasoning in the comments in

Re: [Pixman] [PATCH] test: Add cover-test

On Thu, 03 Sep 2015 11:13:25 +0100, Pekka Paalanen wrote: Unless, you go and change the implementation meaning of Pixman's cover flags which, reading your other reply, is what you are doing. I'm finally starting to see it. Glad the penny has dropped! The issue has been

Re: [Pixman] [PATCH] test: Add cover-test

On Thu, 03 Sep 2015 17:14:05 +0100, Siarhei Siamashka wrote: On Thu, 03 Sep 2015 13:59:07 +0100 "Ben Avison" wrote: Previously, the flag definition was overly cautious, resulting in some cases which could have been handled by cover paths

Re: [Pixman] [PATCH] test: Add cover-test

On Wed, 02 Sep 2015 12:56:40 +0100, Pekka Paalanen wrote: Right. I looked at fast_bilinear_cover_iter_init() and fast_fetch_bilinear_cover() -> fetch_horizontal(), and yes, that really is how it is implemented. The leftmost pixel is chosen essentially by n =

Re: [Pixman] [PATCH] test: Add cover-test

On Wed, 02 Sep 2015 14:03:01 +0100, Pekka Paalanen wrote: I am still a tiny bit struggling with why 31 and not 32, but it does add up. Maybe the reasoning in the comments in random_scale_factor() make more sense? There, it only talks about the numbers as integers,

Re: [Pixman] [PATCH] test: Add cover-test

Hi Ben, here I'm only replying to the questions that are not yet completely clear to me. On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 21:26:57 +0100 "Ben Avison" wrote: > On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 14:00:30 +0100, Pekka Paalanen > wrote: > > > On Tue, 26 May 2015 23:58:30 +0100

Re: [Pixman] [PATCH] test: Add cover-test

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:17:55 +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 bilinear) at or > close to the boundary conditions for applicability of "cover" type

Re: [Pixman] [PATCH] test: Add cover-test

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:56 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > Right. I looked at fast_bilinear_cover_iter_init() and > fast_fetch_bilinear_cover() -> fetch_horizontal(), and yes, that really > is how it is implemented. The leftmost pixel is chosen essentially by > n =

[Pixman] [PATCH] test: Add cover-test

This test aims to verify both numerical correctness and the honouring of array bounds for scaled plots (both nearest-neighbour and bilinear) at or close to the boundary conditions for applicability of cover type fast paths and iter fetch routines. It has a secondary purpose: by setting the env

Re: [Pixman] [PATCH] test: Add cover-test

On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 14:00:30 +0100, Pekka Paalanen ppaala...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, 26 May 2015 23:58:30 +0100 Ben Avison bavi...@riscosopen.org wrote: +#define SQRT_0POINT5_0POINT32_FIXED (0xB504F334u) Ok, I checked. Mathematically it is equivalent, but maybe a slightly more obvious name

Re: [Pixman] [PATCH] test: Add cover-test

On Tue, 26 May 2015 23:58:30 +0100 Ben Avison bavi...@riscosopen.org wrote: This test aims to verify both numerical correctness and the honouring of array bounds for scaled plots (both nearest-neighbour and bilinear) at or close to the boundary conditions for applicability of cover type fast

Re: [Pixman] [PATCH] test: Add cover-test

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Ben Avison bavi...@riscosopen.org wrote: This test aims to verify both numerical correctness and the honouring of array bounds for scaled plots (both nearest-neighbour and bilinear) at or close to the boundary conditions for applicability of cover type fast

[Pixman] [PATCH] test: Add cover-test

This test aims to verify both numerical correctness and the honouring of array bounds for scaled plots (both nearest-neighbour and bilinear) at or close to the boundary conditions for applicability of cover type fast paths and iter fetch routines. It has a secondary purpose: by setting the env