2014-10-30 11:45 GMT+01:00 Henri Verbeet hverbeet@gmail.com:
On 29 October 2014 18:01, Matteo Bruni mbruni@codeweavers.com wrote:
@@ -6145,6 +6145,7 @@ static void test_lockrect_offset(void) {D3DFMT_DXT3, "D3DFMT_DXT3", 4, 4, 16}, {D3DFMT_DXT4, "D3DFMT_DXT4", 4, 4, 16}, {D3DFMT_DXT5, "D3DFMT_DXT5", 4, 4, 16},
{MAKEFOURCC('A','T','I','1'), "ATI1N", 1, 1, 1}, {MAKEFOURCC('A','T','I','2'), "ATI2N", 1, 1, 1},Mostly just curiosity, but there are other tests in device.c for ATI2N, any reason for not adding ATI1N coverage to those as well?
Heh, I was undecided about adding the ATI1N case to the other tests in the same patch or not and I guess by mistake I ended up with some kind of "middle ground" choice... I think I'm going to add it to the missing tests too.
- static const DWORD expected_colors_ati[] = {0x003f3f3f, 0x003f3f3f, 0x00007fff, 0x007f00ff};
- static const DWORD expected_colors_nvidia[] = {0x007f0000, 0x007f0000, 0x00007fff, 0x007f00ff};
Conceptually I might have preferred this as
static const struct { struct vec2 position; D3DCOLOR amd; D3DCOLOR nvidia; } expected_colors[] { ... }but it's not a big deal.
- for (i = 0; i < 4; ++i)
- {
color = getPixelColor(device, 80 + 160 * i, 240);trace("Got 0x%08x.\n", color);Is this leftover debug code?
Initially it was but then left it there on purpose, to be able to check whether the tested driver takes the AMD or the Nvidia approach. Not sure it is worth it though.