On Mon, 2002-10-21 at 16:17, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Sam, 2002-10-19 at 08:10, Allen Akin wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 07:48:53PM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
|
| I had never run glean before, but all I can say is, Wow! Without this
| second patch, running in
On Sam, 2002-10-19 at 08:10, Allen Akin wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 07:48:53PM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
|
| I had never run glean before, but all I can say is, Wow! Without this
| second patch, running in 32-bit would yeild a readback error of ~8 bits for
| every blendFunc test and
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 03:24:57PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
| So is this patch good to go?
I haven't followed the entire discussion, but from what I've seen, the
patch sounds good.
Allen
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:
Access Your
Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Son, 2002-10-13 at 17:54, Michel Dänzer wrote:
I've done some more clueless digging into the problem visible in
http://penguinppc.org/~daenzer/DRI/evas_test.jpeg and
http://penguinppc.org/~daenzer/DRI/celestia.jpeg . My first suspicion
was an off-by-one error in the
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Son, 2002-10-13 at 17:54, Michel Dänzer wrote:
I've done some more clueless digging into the problem visible in
http://penguinppc.org/~daenzer/DRI/evas_test.jpeg and
http://penguinppc.org/~daenzer/DRI/celestia.jpeg . My first suspicion
was an
On Fre, 2002-10-18 at 15:13, Brian Paul wrote:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Son, 2002-10-13 at 17:54, Michel Dänzer wrote:
I've done some more clueless digging into the problem visible in
http://penguinppc.org/~daenzer/DRI/evas_test.jpeg and
Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Fre, 2002-10-18 at 15:13, Brian Paul wrote:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Son, 2002-10-13 at 17:54, Michel Dänzer wrote:
I've done some more clueless digging into the problem visible in
http://penguinppc.org/~daenzer/DRI/evas_test.jpeg and
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 08:49:11AM -0600, Brian Paul wrote:
|
| ...(except polygon offset, IMHO).
Is the precision requirement too high, or is something more fundamental
broken?
Allen
---
This sf.net email is
Allen Akin wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 08:49:11AM -0600, Brian Paul wrote:
|
| ...(except polygon offset, IMHO).
Is the precision requirement too high, or is something more fundamental
broken?
IIRC, the test draws extremely small (subpixel) triangles.
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 11:49:46AM -0600, Brian Paul wrote:
|
| IIRC, the test draws extremely small (subpixel) triangles.
Yeah, the original version of the test did that. The current version
uses a full-window-size quad, so I think it's much better with respect
to the problems you mentioned.
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 12:03:05AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
| Attached is the output of glean -c comparing two runs, one with the
| subpixel offset for the Y coordinate, the other without. It seems if it
| makes a difference, it's for the good ...
Did the trunk pass the tests involving
11 matches
Mail list logo
