[PATCH 4/5] d3d9/tests: Add a test for ATI1N and ATI2N texture formats.

[Matteo Bruni]

2014-10-30 11:45 GMT+01:00 Henri Verbeet <hverbeet at gmail.com>:
> On 29 October 2014 18:01, Matteo Bruni <mbruni at 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.