Leif's idea sounds reasonable to me. Any single operation might not
incur much overhead, but when you have large patterns being moved
quickly -- possibly multiple patterns being moved simultaneously -- then
a small difference may well add up to a lot.
Unfortunately, Leif, the lack of interest means you might have to learn
C. I'm not a C programmer either, so am unable to help. Sorry. But it
does sound like a good idea to me.
Leif Theden wrote:
How could I? I appreciate the skepticism, but if fast_blit is not
implemented, how could I test the overhead? And, it is not just format
checking, it is also clipping and bounds checking.
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 6:22 PM, Greg Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz
<mailto:greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz>> wrote:
Leif Theden wrote:
The fast_blit method would with the barest minimum of checking
before calling the sdl blitting functions.
Have you performed any measurements to find out whether
the checking overhead is significant in the cases where
the formats do match? Without evidence, I'm skeptical
about that.
--
Greg
--
As artists, it would be a hell of a lot easier if our audiences were
more tolerant of our penchant for boring them.
- Cory Doctorow
