On 26 April 2016 at 19:12, Bill Spitzak <[email protected]> wrote: > The old code is comparing pixman_fixed_48_16_t values to > pixman_fixed_16_16_t values, thus it is checking for truncation of overflow > values. > Indeed it does. I'll grep more before asking silly questions ;-)
> It would probably be better to clamp these overflowed values, like > pixman_transform_point_31_16 is doing to clamp to the pixman_fixed_48_16 > result. Right now the result is an odd mix of clamping and modulus. A > rewrite to go directly to clamped pixman_fixed_16_16 values would be even > better. > Sounds like a plan. Sadly I doubt I'll get to it any time soon. Thanks Emil _______________________________________________ Pixman mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
