- Original Message -
> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 09:39 -0600, Brian Paul wrote:
> > Good question. I was thinking that the interleaved vs.
> > non-interleaved paths could probably be merged with a little work.
> > I
> > don't remember the original reason for doing things as they are.
>
> I t
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 09:39 -0600, Brian Paul wrote:
> Good question. I was thinking that the interleaved vs.
> non-interleaved paths could probably be merged with a little work. I
> don't remember the original reason for doing things as they are.
I think it enabled an easier upload path withi
Good question. I was thinking that the interleaved vs.
non-interleaved paths could probably be merged with a little work. I
don't remember the original reason for doing things as they are.
-Brian
On 06/14/2011 08:55 AM, Jose Fonseca wrote:
Looks good Brian.
BTW, does detecting interleav
Looks good Brian.
BTW, does detecting interleaved arrays still provide any advantage for current
HW drivers?
Jose
- Original Message -
> Check that the difference in array pointers/offsets from the 0th
> array are less than the stride, for both VBOs and user-space arrays.
> Previously,
Check that the difference in array pointers/offsets from the 0th
array are less than the stride, for both VBOs and user-space arrays.
Previously, we were only doing this for the later.
This tightens up the interleaved array test and fixes a problem with
the llvmpipe driver where we were creating w
