Closed
Bug 231202
Opened 21 years ago
Closed 21 years ago
[BEOS] transparent images defined as background aren't rendered properly
Categories
(Core Graveyard :: GFX: BeOS, defect)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: sergei_d, Assigned: tor)
Details
Attachments
(5 files, 3 obsolete files)
follow-up to bug 113561
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•21 years ago
|
||
It works.
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•21 years ago
|
||
screenshot of Mozilla-BeOS for testcases: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=60509&action=view and http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=138996&action=view
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•21 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 139235 [details] [diff] [review] Patch (diff -up) review request. See screenshot for testcases
Attachment #139235 -
Flags: review?(tor)
Reporter | ||
Comment 5•21 years ago
|
||
That's not nsImage (and DrawTile inside it) which breaks transparency. it is nsRenderingContextBeOS::CopyOffScreenBits().
Reporter | ||
Comment 8•21 years ago
|
||
tor, i managed to work all properly, but (!) it seems that alpha depth was 0 for that padded tile image. All started to work properly with that page when i commented out test for alpha depth of source image (as you see on screenshot). Is this situation correct, in consistency sense? That we use transparency, while initial image isn't transparent? I understand, that this padding patch was workaround for broken transparency in case when image size is less than container size, but i really wonder this situation. So, now i have working code: if(mAlphaDepth || padding) SetDrawingMode(B_OP_ALPHA); but it looks more like hack for me. If it is really how it should work, i can submit final patch soon.
Reporter | ||
Comment 9•21 years ago
|
||
tor, can you verify if bug 224042 is dup?
Reporter | ||
Comment 10•21 years ago
|
||
if(mAlphaDepth || padding) SetDrawingMode(B_OP_ALPHA); also minimal optimization in ::CreateImage()
Attachment #139235 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Reporter | ||
Comment 11•21 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 139336 [details] [diff] [review] patch (diff -up against HEAD) review request
Attachment #139336 -
Flags: review?(tor)
Reporter | ||
Comment 12•21 years ago
|
||
Same as previous, but there was typo - comment and actual statement were swapped, so it wouldn'g compile against current tree.
Attachment #139336 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Updated•21 years ago
|
Summary: [BEOS] transparent images defined as background aren't rendern properly → [BEOS] transparent images defined as background aren't rendered properly
Reporter | ||
Comment 13•21 years ago
|
||
Heh, why nobody asks what for we need for x loop for non-padded case? (heh, 3 "for" in 1sentense) Lets memcopy perform CPU-featured task itself at max grade. So, maybe there is reason to separate padded and non padded tiling. Marking previous patch as concept prove. Maybe checked in case of review to fix build bustage, but anyway, i will improve it in future
Reporter | ||
Comment 14•21 years ago
|
||
per comment http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=231202#c13 Don't listen. That's result of sleep deprivation. Obsoleted
Reporter | ||
Comment 15•21 years ago
|
||
Actually i meant such algorythm. Prefilling first mHeight rows in target bitmap in simple 2d loop, then memcpy in another Y-only loop whole already filled rows. But cannot predict performance difference at moment. Only known truth about optimization is that existance of processor cache makes sometimes loop with single writes much less effective than using big chunks to write.
Reporter | ||
Comment 16•21 years ago
|
||
Hope it will be checked in
Attachment #139338 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Reporter | ||
Comment 17•21 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 139235 [details] [diff] [review] Patch (diff -up) removin r=? from old version
Attachment #139235 -
Flags: review?(tor)
Reporter | ||
Comment 18•21 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 139336 [details] [diff] [review] patch (diff -up against HEAD) removing r?
Attachment #139336 -
Flags: review?(tor)
Reporter | ||
Comment 19•21 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 139410 [details] [diff] [review] Patch (diff -up against HEAD) review request. Time to fix build bustage
Attachment #139410 -
Flags: review?(tor)
Attachment #139410 -
Flags: review?(tor) → review+
Comment 20•21 years ago
|
||
cvs commit: Examining gfx/src/beos Checking in gfx/src/beos/nsImageBeOS.cpp; /cvsroot/mozilla/gfx/src/beos/nsImageBeOS.cpp,v <-- nsImageBeOS.cpp new revision: 1.26; previous revision: 1.25 done Checking in gfx/src/beos/nsImageBeOS.h; /cvsroot/mozilla/gfx/src/beos/nsImageBeOS.h,v <-- nsImageBeOS.h new revision: 1.17; previous revision: 1.16 done
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 21 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Updated•15 years ago
|
Product: Core → Core Graveyard
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•