On 10/19/2016 01:13 PM, Henri Verbeet wrote:
On 14 October 2016 at 18:12, Nikolay Sivov <nsivov(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
+ if (!pixel_size && size) + { + texture_desc.Width = ceilf((size->width * parent_target->desc.dpiX) / 96.0f); + texture_desc.Height = ceilf((size->height * parent_target->desc.dpiY) / 96.0f); + dxgi_rt_desc.dpiX = (texture_desc.Width * 96.0f) / size->width; + dxgi_rt_desc.dpiY = (texture_desc.Height * 96.0f) / size->height; + } + else if (pixel_size && !size) + { + texture_desc.Width = pixel_size->width; + texture_desc.Height = pixel_size->height; + dxgi_rt_desc.dpiX = parent_target->desc.dpiX; + dxgi_rt_desc.dpiY = parent_target->desc.dpiY; + } + else if (pixel_size && size) + { + texture_desc.Width = pixel_size->width; + texture_desc.Height = pixel_size->height; + dxgi_rt_desc.dpiX = (pixel_size->width * 96.0f) / size->width; + dxgi_rt_desc.dpiY = (pixel_size->height * 96.0f) / size->height; + } + else + { + texture_desc.Width = parent_target->pixel_size.width; + texture_desc.Height = parent_target->pixel_size.height; + dxgi_rt_desc.dpiX = parent_target->desc.dpiX; + dxgi_rt_desc.dpiY = parent_target->desc.dpiY; + } It may just be taste, but I think this is a bit harder to follow than it needs to be. What do you think about the following?
Sure, just sent v2. Initially I did it in the same orderit's documented.