----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Denis Lila" <dl...@redhat.com> To: "Jim Graham" <james.gra...@oracle.com> Sent: Monday, August 9, 2010 4:58:10 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] Various fixes to pisces stroke widening code
Hi Jim. Good idea. I've implemented it. I also noticed the quicksort method wasn't very friendly to 0 length arrays. I fixed that. I ran Java2Demo and a few of my tests, and everything looks good. http://icedtea.classpath.org/~dlila/webrevs/fpBetterAAv2/webrev/ Everything, except the joins demo, that is. The interior of the star's right arm (our left) and left leg is not drawn exactly like in proprietary java or openjdk6. I am not sure if this is a bug since I don't know exactly how the results of a bs.createStrokedShape are supposed to look. However, I am almost certain that this isn't my fault, since I can reproduce the behaviour with an only slightly changed version of openjdk7 with completely different changes than what's in this patch. I'll run it next morning with a fresh build of openjdk7 to be completely sure. Can I push it? Thanks, Denis. ----- "Jim Graham" <james.gra...@oracle.com> wrote: > To the end of getting rid of "flips" - all they are used for is to > resize the crossings array, right? This is not a huge array that > costs > a lot to resize - why not simply use a default array of, say, 30 > elements and then resize it if we ever have more crossings than that? > > Only very complicated paths would have more than 30 crossings to > track. > The check for array length is only needed once per scanline since we > > know how many active edges are on each scan line (hi-lo) and you can > only have 1 crossing per active edge so with one test per scanline we > > can keep the crossings array within range... > > ...jim > > Jim Graham wrote: > > Hi Denis, > > > > Well, I guess it's a good thing that Java2Demo had a path like that > in > > it - not a very common case, so it's good we found it! > > > > The fix looks fine. It still seems like there is way more logic > there > > than is needed - hopefully if we can get rid of flips at some point, > > > much of it will go away. > > > > Fixes look good to go to me... > > > > ...jim > > > > On 8/5/2010 3:58 PM, Denis Lila wrote: > >> Hi Jim. > >> > >> I didn't know about Java2Demo. If I did I would have run it > sooner. > >> But I ran it a few hours ago, and everything looked fine > (surprisingly > >> high fps too) until I got to the append test. > >> > >> Apparently I introduced a bug when solving the "2 consecutive > moveTos > >> bug". > >> Basically, when there's a close() after a horizontal lineTo(), the > lineTo > >> in close() won't be executed because it's inside the if > >> (firstOrientation != 0) > >> test. So instead of going back to the starting point, close will > stay > >> where > >> it is, which will draw a triangle above the rectangle. > >> > >> I fixed this by introducing a variable that keeps track of the last > > >> method > >> called (lineTo, moveTo, or close), and instead of checking for > >> firstOrientation != 0 > >> in close(), I check for (last == LINE_TO). > >> > >> webrev (hopefully final): > >> http://icedtea.classpath.org/~dlila/webrevs/fpBetterAAv2/webrev/ > >> > >> I'm sorry about this. I wish I had known about Java2Demo sooner. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Denis. > >> > >> ----- "Jim Graham"<james.gra...@oracle.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Denis, > >>> > >>> That's great! I just did a last minute double-check of your last > >>> (final) webrevs to be sure. > >>> > >>> Have you tested Java2Demo with these changes? I'd also run any > >>> regression tests you can find with the changes. If there are no > >>> problems there, then you are good to go to push it... > >>> > >>> ...jim > >>> > >>> On 8/5/2010 8:08 AM, Denis Lila wrote: > >>>> Hello. > >>>> > >>>>> Are you a registered OpenJDK developer? > >>>> I am now. > >>>> Can I go ahead and push it? > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Denis.
