Re: [PATCH xserver 02/10 v2] glamor: Require that 16bpp pixmap depths match for Render copies.

2016-09-27 Thread Michel Dänzer
On 26/09/16 03:53 AM, Eric Anholt wrote: > Michel Dänzer writes: >> On 23/09/16 09:51 PM, Eric Anholt wrote: >>> >>> We do need some concerted effort on actually fixing our rendering bugs >>> and reenabling the skipped tests. I've spent a while trying to come up >>> with why

Re: [PATCH xserver 02/10 v2] glamor: Require that 16bpp pixmap depths match for Render copies.

2016-09-25 Thread Eric Anholt
Michel Dänzer writes: > On 23/09/16 09:51 PM, Eric Anholt wrote: >> Michel Dänzer writes: >>> On 23/09/16 04:57 PM, Eric Anholt wrote: The copy optimization in d37329cba42fa8e72fe4be8a7be18e512268b5bd replicated a bug from last time we did a

Re: [PATCH xserver 02/10 v2] glamor: Require that 16bpp pixmap depths match for Render copies.

2016-09-25 Thread Michel Dänzer
On 23/09/16 09:51 PM, Eric Anholt wrote: > Michel Dänzer writes: >> On 23/09/16 04:57 PM, Eric Anholt wrote: >>> The copy optimization in d37329cba42fa8e72fe4be8a7be18e512268b5bd >>> replicated a bug from last time we did a copy optimization, and didn't >>> get rendercheck run

Re: [PATCH xserver 02/10 v2] glamor: Require that 16bpp pixmap depths match for Render copies.

2016-09-23 Thread Eric Anholt
Michel Dänzer writes: > On 23/09/16 04:57 PM, Eric Anholt wrote: >> The copy optimization in d37329cba42fa8e72fe4be8a7be18e512268b5bd >> replicated a bug from last time we did a copy optimization, and didn't >> get rendercheck run on it. > > Actually, I'm pretty sure I did

Re: [PATCH xserver 02/10 v2] glamor: Require that 16bpp pixmap depths match for Render copies.

2016-09-23 Thread Michel Dänzer
On 23/09/16 04:57 PM, Eric Anholt wrote: > The copy optimization in d37329cba42fa8e72fe4be8a7be18e512268b5bd > replicated a bug from last time we did a copy optimization, and didn't > get rendercheck run on it. Actually, I'm pretty sure I did run rendercheck, but didn't notice the regression due