Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> 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 run rendercheck, but didn't notice the > regression due to the radeonsi bug affecting the same test. Please > consider removing that language from the commit log.
OK. I'll drop the comment about running rendercheck. 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 the remaining rendercheck test fails and come up with nothing yet. >> This is effectively a re-cherry-pick of >> 510c8605641803f1f5b5d2de6d3bb422b148e0e7. >> >> Fixes rendercheck -t blend -o src -f x4r4g4b4,x3r4g4b4 >> >> v2: Drop excessive src->depth == dst->depth check that snuck in. >> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net> >> --- >> >> Michel, I didn't apply your review becuase you said "second clause", >> but I removed the first of the two. > > Is there any case where the drawable depths don't match, but a copy does > what's expected? I asked keithp, and he agreed that CopyArea may not be used to copy between depths. Render is totally defined across depths, though.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
