Why complain about X1R5G5B5?
hverbeet at gmail.com
Sat Feb 23 10:20:34 CST 2013
On 23 February 2013 16:42, Stefan Dösinger <stefandoesinger at gmail.com> wrote:
> There are also potential issues because X1R5G5B5 is a 16 bit format, just like R5G6B5, which makes depth<->format mapping tricky. If the current setup uses a color depth of 16 bits and the app does not request a specific adapter format, which one does the driver choose?
I don't think applications can actually do that. (Although if you mean
backbuffer format instead of adapter format there, that would just be
whatever format it's currently using.)
Personally, I suspect the test is just overly restrictive. Yes, there
have been a couple of cases where applications break if you expose
e.g. certain texture formats, but I don't think it necessarily makes
sense to write tests like that until you actually find an application
that breaks because of it. That doesn't mean it isn't a pretty
uncommon format and something the QXL people may want to look into,
but I don't think we want the tests to fail because of it.
CheckDeviceType() probably just fails for every format combination
because the driver can't do 3D.
More information about the wine-devel