On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 22:04 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In fact that's exactly what I am working on.
> If you look at my last post to the bug you linked above you will see I
> started a new bug since this one was getting too long, confused and mixing
> a number of issues.
Sorry, but I am unable to follow your way of handling bug reports. If
there's now a new bug that deals with remaining issues in bug #167956,
why is the former not closed then? And why is the new bug not on the 2.4
> 2) scale_region_no_resample() calculates offset tables effectively using
> (x + 0.5) . This would seem to be aimed at using the midpoint to scale
> down but has no meaning to scaling up. It's a nop. Using guint instead of
> gint for this data would also be more efficient.
Sorry, but guint is never any more efficient than gint and it is likely
to introduce bugs that are very hard to find. Please avoid the use of
guint by all means. It should only be used when bit-fiddling is
Gimp-developer mailing list