On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 07:11:38PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 05:43:40PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 06:25:12PM +0200, Ville Syrjala wrote: > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Now that we've constrained the clipped source rectangle such > > > that it can't have negative dimensions doing the same for the > > > dst rectangle seems appropriate. Should at least result in > > > the clipped src and dst rectangles being a bit more consistent > > > with each other. > > > > > > Cc: Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@xxxxxx> > > > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > selftests for this stuff? Looks like the prime example, write testcase > > proving code is busted, fix it, everyone celebrate? > > Yeah, seems like a good idea. Though I'll have to figure out if it's > actually broken or not ;) I *think* the only problem is that the clip can result in a visible source rectangle when this happens. The dst rectangle will still be correctly invisible so hopefully not a big deal. But I guess we might as well fix it, and I can do a selftest which makes sure both src and dst come out invisible. > > Hmm. Ouch. There's seems to be a div by zero lurking in there if > dst_w/h == 0. I wonder why nothing has hit that. Definitely real. I'll fix it and toss in a selftest. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
