I haven't completely finished the conversion to generate triangles instead of scanlines, but it would be very easy for me to make it generate trapezoids instead of triangles.
Mike Emmel wrote: > I agree the software fallback should just be the generic polygon fill. > > A bit warped but if .. > > If you have hardware accel triangle then poly uses that > If not you do scanline and the triangle fallback just calls the poly > fill. > > As a note for cairo a optimized case of filling trapezoids would really > help. > > Something like > > http://www.cs.unc.edu/~dm/CODE/GEM/chapter.html > > Anyway to note your dealing with traps would be cool. > > I've not looked at your algo but if you do > > poly->traps ---? triangle/scanline > and we have a api for trapezoids it would work very well with 2D front > ends. > > Fast trapezoid drawing is very very useful as a backend for most 2D > engines. > > > On 9/13/06, Ville Syrjälä <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 07:41:30AM -0400, Matt Lavin wrote: >> > That's an interesting question with respect to my desired changes. >> Last >> > night I thought of a change I could make so that the polygon is >> rendered >> > with triangles instead of scanlines. Would it be better to render >> with >> > fillTriangle calls because it is usually hardware accelerated? >> >> Yes, it should be faster. However if FillTriangle isn't hw accelerated >> then it would probably be faster to use scanlines (FillTriangle sw >> fallback uses scanlines anyway). >> >> -- >> Ville Syrjälä >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://www.sci.fi/~syrjala/ >> > _______________________________________________ directfb-dev mailing list directfb-dev@directfb.org http://mail.directfb.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/directfb-dev
