On 3 October 2013 13:08, Stefan Dösinger stefan@codeweavers.com wrote:
dlls/wined3d/volume.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- dlls/wined3d/wined3d_private.h | 6 ++++-- 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
What about surfaces and buffers?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Am 2013-10-03 13:14, schrieb Henri Verbeet:
On 3 October 2013 13:08, Stefan Dösinger stefan@codeweavers.com wrote:
--- dlls/wined3d/volume.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- dlls/wined3d/wined3d_private.h | 6 ++++-- 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
What about surfaces and buffers?
Will be updated as well. See http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2013-October/101575.html for the surface part and more explanations.
On 3 October 2013 13:22, Stefan Dösinger stefan@codeweavers.com wrote:
Am 2013-10-03 13:14, schrieb Henri Verbeet:
On 3 October 2013 13:08, Stefan Dösinger stefan@codeweavers.com wrote:
--- dlls/wined3d/volume.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- dlls/wined3d/wined3d_private.h | 6 ++++-- 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
What about surfaces and buffers?
Will be updated as well. See http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2013-October/101575.html for the surface part and more explanations.
It sounds like you have some ordering issues in that patch set.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Am 2013-10-03 13:45, schrieb Henri Verbeet:
On 3 October 2013 13:22, Stefan Dösinger stefan@codeweavers.com wrote:
Will be updated as well. See http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2013-October/101575.html
for the surface part and more explanations.
It sounds like you have some ordering issues in that patch set.
Correct. Patches before patch 24 shouldn't be affected by that though. I didn't get around to splitting and recombining patch 24 and some later bugfixes yet due to other priorities.
Unless you mean to imply that you disagree with the ordering of the first 23 patches, where the order is mostly a matter of opinion instead of technical constraints.
On 3 October 2013 15:03, Stefan Dösinger stefan@codeweavers.com wrote:
Am 2013-10-03 13:45, schrieb Henri Verbeet:
It sounds like you have some ordering issues in that patch set.
Correct. Patches before patch 24 shouldn't be affected by that though. I didn't get around to splitting and recombining patch 24 and some later bugfixes yet due to other priorities.
Unless you mean to imply that you disagree with the ordering of the first 23 patches, where the order is mostly a matter of opinion instead of technical constraints.
I don't think this patch makes sense before you actually unify the location management. In particular, after this patch you'd have location management in resources that really only does anything for volumes, while from the surface point of view you'd have duplicate location management.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Am 2013-10-03 16:05, schrieb Henri Verbeet:
I don't think this patch makes sense before you actually unify the location management. In particular, after this patch you'd have location management in resources that really only does anything for volumes, while from the surface point of view you'd have duplicate location management.
I think the harm in that is only cosmetic because the surface one will go away, but reordering the patches is easy.
I do prefer to deal with buffers after merging the location management of surfaces and volumes though. Merging buffers will require considerable additional work, most notably removing the buffer conversion code and preferably (but not necessarily) adding an arbvp vertex pipeline that can handle rhw vertices and forwards everything else to the fixed function code.
-
Henri Verbeet -
Stefan Dösinger