Re: [Pixman] [PATCH v3] test: Add cover-test

2015-09-07 Thread Pekka Paalanen
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

Re: [Pixman] [PATCH v3] test: Add cover-test

2015-09-07 Thread Ben Avison
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

Re: [Pixman] [PATCH v3] test: Add cover-test

2015-09-04 Thread Oded Gabbay
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

Re: [Pixman] [PATCH v3] test: Add cover-test

2015-09-04 Thread Pekka Paalanen
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

Re: [Pixman] [PATCH v3] test: Add cover-test

2015-09-04 Thread Ben Avison
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

Re: [Pixman] [PATCH v3] test: Add cover-test

2015-09-03 Thread Pekka Paalanen
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