Re: [Pixman] [PATCH v2] pixman-general: Tighten up calculation of temporary buffer sizes

2015-09-25 Thread Pekka Paalanen
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:12:42 +0200 soren.sandm...@gmail.com (Søren Sandmann) wrote: > Pekka Paalanen writes: > > >> As a discussion point, wouldn't it be better for the ALIGN macro to > >> assume 32-byte cache lines? Both 16-byte and 32-byte cachelines are > >> currently in

Re: [Pixman] [PATCH v2] pixman-general: Tighten up calculation of temporary buffer sizes

2015-09-24 Thread Søren Sandmann
Pekka Paalanen writes: >> As a discussion point, wouldn't it be better for the ALIGN macro to >> assume 32-byte cache lines? Both 16-byte and 32-byte cachelines are >> currently in common use, but by aligning the buffers to 32-byte addresses >> we would simultaneously

Re: [Pixman] [PATCH v2] pixman-general: Tighten up calculation of temporary buffer sizes

2015-09-22 Thread Pekka Paalanen
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 12:43:25 +0100 Ben Avison wrote: > Each of the aligns can only add a maximum of 15 bytes to the space > requirement. This permits some edge cases to use the stack buffer where > previously it would have deduced that a heap buffer was required. > --- >

[Pixman] [PATCH v2] pixman-general: Tighten up calculation of temporary buffer sizes

2015-09-22 Thread Ben Avison
Each of the aligns can only add a maximum of 15 bytes to the space requirement. This permits some edge cases to use the stack buffer where previously it would have deduced that a heap buffer was required. --- This is an update of my previous patch (now posted over a year ago):