On Wednesday 23 July 2008 10:29:37 am Victor wrote: > 0) initial patch used "mask size" + "mask offset", but was rewritten to use > mask value when Stefan Dösinger requested that. I don't want to rewrite it > back to use mask size + mask offset. > 1) mask size and offset can be extracted from mask value. > 2) using mask instead of "mask size" + "mask offset" requires less function > arguments and smaller format table, although, yes there is a higher chance > of producing errors.
But extracting the mask offset and size from the actual mask takes a bit of time, and as it is, the table can't currently set a proper mask for anything over 32 bits (including the 16-bit-per-component unsigned integer types).
