D3DRM Implementation patches upto CreateDeviceFromSurface

Aaryaman Vasishta jem456.vasishta at gmail.com
Tue Aug 4 14:56:49 CDT 2015


Just to clarify for others: All the patches in the previous email are yet
to be pushed - I made a mistake in specifying which patches are already
upstream (where I said 0000-0005 are already upstream) two of those patches
are not yet upstream, which I've included in the patchset I just sent.

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Aaryaman Vasishta <jem456.vasishta at gmail.com
> wrote:

> As discussed on IRC, here's the patches rebased on top of the current
> upstream's HEAD (as of 8/5/15).
>
>
> Jam
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Aaryaman Vasishta <
> jem456.vasishta at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The patch numbers start from 6 because I haven't updated my origin yet.
>> Patches 0 - 5 have already been pushed upstream.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jam
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 10:01 PM, Aaryaman Vasishta <
>> jem456.vasishta at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, here's the updated patch with width and height removed from
>>> device_init and quite a bit of useless NULL checks and redundant if's
>>> removed (as they're no longer needed once the implementations are added)
>>> I'll be following a similar approach while sending over
>>> CreateDeviceFromD3D's implementation.
>>>
>>> I've also removed some redundancy in device_init too, hopefully threre
>>> shouldn't be any leaks this time.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:00 AM, Stefan Dösinger <
>>> stefandoesinger at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> Am 2015-08-03 um 23:24 schrieb Aaryaman Vasishta:
>>>> > This could still lead to a redundant check for DDSCAPS_3DDEVICE in
>>>> >  the case of CreateDeviceFromClipper, as we're creating the surface
>>>> >  internally so we know that this flag will be set always. Is this
>>>> > overhead acceptable? If yes then I have no problem in shifting the
>>>> >  check there.
>>>> Yeah, I think that's fine. Better than duplicating the code in two
>>>> places.
>>>>
>>>> (And no, I don't think it's worth adding a parameter to skip the check)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>> Version: GnuPG v2
>>>>
>>>> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJVv914AAoJEN0/YqbEcdMw/ZcP/iFB/y+65ok1hQwIleuqtrWQ
>>>> wDuTNJvibf7heqXCitoiaebb5QSB8HA5zfrnaFu+10XrzYNX7eCy7k2kXMi1GTGQ
>>>> a9i8pAfhcOrPbG9OLUL3g7whkj5A8obrwrXvplm5HwrT3aE0Hrg9xpobB7IrVtrZ
>>>> pke5/UWfy9G3ZjoLY+X+uSx5ANDT9DzAjnCqyDQq9zRl32ICB1u2pAlXuw3I0jA0
>>>> Popf3cRqY7RvKfz2G+I3nE37eKGCWV8M/uNn14DDDYgNwI48LfMTVajDN45KUkbZ
>>>> A/OkusMdzQ4uDI+QyxHk6pPq85zFzb6/vo1ucvf//XxS/5bJrofyoKUGuuraH1H5
>>>> l/Pyd956XyW9st457eIOW181OoyWUph8KWXSTUEo79z1BdnjP+UtC7P2bIn/V0MN
>>>> PBJeAFnSGrio5Iya8dg8XMg7De2yWP2pOyga+yl8KAkth4ynqE2/Mi5/VdYXJPR/
>>>> +hIEb6WE81CTrZSrfRsVCpSDNvYswtFncyk6MvqsObfddlKD7OU4c1FluWiZ7j6z
>>>> SjPrqOUmK1IfxhJyPnyjgGmjdDv10d7FhFmI7S8MDM1OcTSlSOPGYgx42STAH4ss
>>>> cIsIiizRRVAnuOBjGAL5NxQg5Bg07am1QHsju5XcjKOYc/oOF6xaUtoivOSTylxE
>>>> 0SUk2FjWQMA7H03ScK5U
>>>> =tn/g
>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/attachments/20150805/3ba5800b/attachment.html>


More information about the wine-devel mailing list