On 27 July 2012 20:41, Jeffrey Lee wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Andrew Flegg wrote:
>
>> Is there something I've missed which'd allow video scaling (say 2x)
>> for modes < 640x480.
>
> For the X11 port, the place to start looking is the
> SDD_Name(Host_ChangeMode)() function, which is actually im
On 29 July 2012 20:09, Andrew Flegg wrote:
>
> What happens to 'HD' after its been initialised? What actually does
> the pixel blatting and how could this be getting confused with a >2
> XScale, but not a >2 YScale?
Ah, it seems that SDD_Name(RowFunc) dispatches to an explicit set of
functions wh
On 29 July 2012 20:18, Andrew Flegg wrote:
>
> Ah, it seems that SDD_Name(RowFunc) dispatches to an explicit set of
> functions which only support 1X and 2X. Hmm.
These 16 functions (1bpp, 2bpp, 4bpp, 8bpp @ 1x. 2x with flags and
without flags) are all *very* similar and look like they should be
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, Andrew Flegg wrote:
> On 29 July 2012 20:09, Andrew Flegg wrote:
>>
>> What happens to 'HD' after its been initialised? What actually does
>> the pixel blatting and how could this be getting confused with a >2
>> XScale, but not a >2 YScale?
>
> Ah, it seems that SDD_Name(Row
On 29 July 2012 20:31, Jeffrey Lee wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, Andrew Flegg wrote:
>
>> Ah, it seems that SDD_Name(RowFunc) dispatches to an explicit set of
>> functions which only support 1X and 2X. Hmm.
>
> Yes, I guess I forgot about that!
:-)
> Are you planning on using > 2x horizontal sca
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, Andrew Flegg wrote:
> On 29 July 2012 20:18, Andrew Flegg wrote:
>>
>> Ah, it seems that SDD_Name(RowFunc) dispatches to an explicit set of
>> functions which only support 1X and 2X. Hmm.
>
> These 16 functions (1bpp, 2bpp, 4bpp, 8bpp @ 1x. 2x with flags and
> without flags)
On 29 July 2012 20:41, Jeffrey Lee wrote:
>
> Abstractable, yes. Abstractable without impacting performance? Doubtful.
> Remember that I fought long and hard to get ArcEm to run at ARM2 speeds on
> an Iyonix, so I don't really want us to start doing things that will harm
> performance unless we've
On 29/07/2012 20:34, Andrew Flegg wrote:
> On 29 July 2012 20:31, Jeffrey Lee wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, Andrew Flegg wrote:
>>
>>> Ah, it seems that SDD_Name(RowFunc) dispatches to an explicit set of
>>> functions which only support 1X and 2X. Hmm.
>>
>> Yes, I guess I forgot about that!
>
>
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, Andrew Flegg wrote:
> On 29 July 2012 20:41, Jeffrey Lee wrote:
>>
>> Abstractable, yes. Abstractable without impacting performance? Doubtful.
>> Remember that I fought long and hard to get ArcEm to run at ARM2 speeds on
>> an Iyonix, so I don't really want us to start doing
On 29 July 2012 20:50, Ian Jeffray wrote:
> On 29/07/2012 20:34, Andrew Flegg wrote:
>>
>> 320x256 is common for games, but blowing these up by 3x to 960x768
>> seems sensible (on my setup at least). Adding another set for 3x would
>> be the easiest option, but adding support for arbitrary scaling
On 29 July 2012 20:58, Jeffrey Lee wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, Andrew Flegg wrote:
>
> Anything that could conceivably make things slower is a concern ;)
Fair enough. My day job makes me think that anything that makes such a
dent on maintainability is also a concern - but I don't write
emulator
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, Andrew Flegg wrote:
> On 29 July 2012 20:50, Ian Jeffray wrote:
>
>> So long as we don't lose performance... lots of separately optimised
>> functions are good for performance. And they're not /quite/ as
>> similar as you may think at first glance.
>
> I admit I didn't diff
12 matches
Mail list logo
