On Mon, 2013-02-11 at 05:27 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> > Actually, on second thought this means it's probably better to keep the
> > current naming scheme for array formats. Maybe the component names and
> > sizes could be packed together to indicate packed formats, e.g.
> > PIPE_FORMAT_B5G6R5_U
- Original Message -
> On Mon, 2013-02-04 at 20:17 +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> >
> > [...] how about something like this:
> >
> > Define the packing to be in the host byte order. However, do not define
> > array formats as packed values (which makes little sense e.g. for
> > *32*32*32
- Original Message -
> On Don, 2013-01-31 at 07:18 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> > > On Don, 2013-01-31 at 02:14 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> > > > - Original Message -
> > > > > On Mit, 2013-01-30 at 08:35 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> > > > > > ---
On Mon, 2013-02-04 at 20:17 +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>
> [...] how about something like this:
>
> Define the packing to be in the host byte order. However, do not define
> array formats as packed values (which makes little sense e.g. for
> *32*32*32*32 anyway) but really just as arrays. 16- o
On Don, 2013-01-31 at 07:18 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > On Don, 2013-01-31 at 02:14 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> > > - Original Message -
> > > > On Mit, 2013-01-30 at 08:35 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> > > > > - Original Message -
> > >
> > > Is
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Don, 2013-01-31 at 02:14 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
>> - Original Message -
>> > On Mit, 2013-01-30 at 08:35 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
>> > >
>> > > - Original Message -
>> > > > For another example (which I suspect is mor
- Original Message -
> On Don, 2013-01-31 at 02:14 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> > > On Mit, 2013-01-30 at 08:35 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> > > >
> > > > - Original Message -
> > > > > For another example (which I suspect is more relevant for
> >
On Don, 2013-01-31 at 06:42 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> > On Don, 2013-01-31 at 02:14 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> > > - Original Message -
> > > > On Mit, 2013-01-30 at 08:35 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > - Original Message -
>
- Original Message -
> On Don, 2013-01-31 at 02:14 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> > > On Mit, 2013-01-30 at 08:35 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> > > >
> > > > - Original Message -
> > > > > For another example (which I suspect is more relevant for
> >
On Don, 2013-01-31 at 02:14 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > On Mit, 2013-01-30 at 08:35 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > > For another example (which I suspect is more relevant for this
> > > > thread),
> > > > wouldn't it be
On 31.01.2013 09:30, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Mit, 2013-01-30 at 08:35 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
>> - Original Message -
>>> On Mit, 2013-01-30 at 06:12 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
- Original Message -
> On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 06:56 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
>> I've b
- Original Message -
> On Mit, 2013-01-30 at 08:35 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > > On Mit, 2013-01-30 at 06:12 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> > > >
> > > > - Original Message -
> > > > > On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 06:56 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> >
On Mit, 2013-01-30 at 08:35 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> > On Mit, 2013-01-30 at 06:12 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > > On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 06:56 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > > > > I've been looking at untangling the
- Original Message -
> On Mit, 2013-01-30 at 06:12 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > > On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 06:56 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > > > I've been looking at untangling the pixel format code for
> > > > big-endian.
> > > > My current theory
On Mit, 2013-01-30 at 06:12 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> > On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 06:56 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > > I've been looking at untangling the pixel format code for
> > > big-endian.
> > > My current theory is that blindly byte-swapping values is just
- Original Message -
> On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 06:56 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > I've been looking at untangling the pixel format code for
> > big-endian.
> > My current theory is that blindly byte-swapping values is just
> > wrong.
>
> Certainly. :) I think you're discovering that this
On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 06:56 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> I've been looking at untangling the pixel format code for big-endian.
> My current theory is that blindly byte-swapping values is just wrong.
Certainly. :) I think you're discovering that this hasn't really been
thought through beyond what'
I've been looking at untangling the pixel format code for big-endian.
My current theory is that blindly byte-swapping values is just wrong.
Data coming from the application is never in the "wrong" order.
Consider the first non-trivial format emitted in u_format_table.c:
/* taken from an x86 bu
18 matches
Mail list logo
