On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 17:12:59 +0100, I wrote:
I imagine most of the time, you'll have a source image of fixed size, and
you'll either have a target destination size (in which case your task is
to calculate the transform matrix coefficients) or you'll have a target
scaling factor (in which case you
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 12:46:56 +0100,
Pekka Paalanen wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 17:03:43 +0100
"Ben Avison" wrote:
For nearest-neighbour scaling, the nth pixel of a source or mask image is
considered to cover the space (n, n+1]. Yes, that's inclusive at the
upper end and exclusive at the lowe
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 17:03:43 +0100
"Ben Avison" wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 10:39:54 +0100,
> Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 19:00:58 +0100
> > "Ben Avison" wrote:
> >
> >> Assume the reasonable case that you want to plot the whole of
> >> an image of size x,y at a size m,n.
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 10:39:54 +0100,
Pekka Paalanen wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 19:00:58 +0100
"Ben Avison" wrote:
Assume the reasonable case that you want to plot the whole of
an image of size x,y at a size m,n. You need to set the diagonals of
the transform to
floor(pixman_fixed_1*(x-1)/(m-
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 19:00:58 +0100
"Ben Avison" wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 11:28:42 +0100, Pekka Paalanen
> wrote:
> > So the matrices are indexed as matrix[row][column] in Pixman?
>
> That's my understanding, yes.
>
> > A short'ish comment somewhere to say why you are doing this offsetting
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 11:28:42 +0100, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
So the matrices are indexed as matrix[row][column] in Pixman?
That's my understanding, yes.
A short'ish comment somewhere to say why you are doing this offsetting
would be nice, and that the offsetting is the reason to allocate a
marg
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 02:27:48 +0100
"Ben Avison" wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:12:53 -, Pekka Paalanen
> wrote:
> > If there is no transform, why not return the original extents?
> > These have been reduced by a half unit in all four directions.
>
> It's more obviously relevant in the bi
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:12:53 -, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
affine-bench should be added to .gitignore too.
OK.
+#define L2CACHE_SIZE (128 * 1024)
I see lowlevel-blt-bench.c also uses L2CACHE_SIZE, but where does it
come from? If it's really an arch/platform-independent constant, maybe
some
On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 15:24:20 +
Ben Avison wrote:
> ---
> test/Makefile.sources |1 +
> test/affine-bench.c | 330
> +
> 2 files changed, 331 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 test/affine-bench.c
>
> diff --git a/test/
---
test/Makefile.sources |1 +
test/affine-bench.c | 330 +
2 files changed, 331 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 test/affine-bench.c
diff --git a/test/Makefile.sources b/test/Makefile.sources
index c20c34b..8b0e855 100644
-
10 matches
Mail list logo
