On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 14:29:22 +0100
"Ben Avison" wrote:
> 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
On Mon, 07 Sep 2015 10:19:04 +0100, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 14:29:22 +0100
"Ben Avison" wrote:
Obviously that would require work to the fence image code as well as to
cover-test, so I thought I'd ask for opinions - is it worth the
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, 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 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 bilinear) at or
> close to the boundary conditions for applicability of "cover" type