I have now implemented and checked in SDL.Surface->set_pixel and get_pixel methods. Note that they do no boundary checking so if you write outside the surface... Well, go figure. I could add it but I'd rather avoid any checks I can for performance reasons...
Also, what is the ETA for Pike 7.4 right now? How much time left for additional documentation / feature implementation in the SDL module?
/ David Hedbor
Previous text:
2002-11-25 20:59: Subject: SDL
I have now implemented and checked in SDL.Surface->set_pixel and get_pixel methods. Note that they do no boundary checking so if you write outside the surface... Well, go figure. I could add it but I'd rather avoid any checks I can for performance reasons...
/ David Hedbor
We had a code meeting this weekend, as you can see in the CVS, and managed to do a lot of work. I really see no reason why we should not split the CVS this week.
/ Martin Nilsson (Hossnij)
Previous text:
2002-11-25 21:02: Subject: SDL
Also, what is the ETA for Pike 7.4 right now? How much time left for additional documentation / feature implementation in the SDL module?
/ David Hedbor
Ok. By the way, why a split? Are we talking 7.4 & 7.5 split or 7.3 & 7.4? I don't see either as necessary (we don't want to keep 7.3 around and don't want to start on 7.5 yet - or do we). In either case, I don't think there should be a 7.3 repository after any move/split...
/ David Hedbor
Previous text:
2002-11-25 21:19: Subject: SDL
We had a code meeting this weekend, as you can see in the CVS, and managed to do a lot of work. I really see no reason why we should not split the CVS this week.
/ Martin Nilsson (Hossnij)
7.3 is splitted into 7.4 and 7.5. After that all work is done in the 7.5 tree and bugfixes folded back into 7.4.
/ Martin Nilsson (Hossnij)
Previous text:
2002-11-25 21:22: Subject: SDL
Ok. By the way, why a split? Are we talking 7.4 & 7.5 split or 7.3 & 7.4? I don't see either as necessary (we don't want to keep 7.3 around and don't want to start on 7.5 yet - or do we). In either case, I don't think there should be a 7.3 repository after any move/split...
/ David Hedbor
Does it really make a measurable difference, considering the overhead for the function calls etc? To me it appears to be operations on a far too low level to make efficient pike programs possible anyway.
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS
Previous text:
2002-11-25 20:59: Subject: SDL
I have now implemented and checked in SDL.Surface->set_pixel and get_pixel methods. Note that they do no boundary checking so if you write outside the surface... Well, go figure. I could add it but I'd rather avoid any checks I can for performance reasons...
/ David Hedbor
I don't know. As for being "far too low level" -> sure, but sometimes it's actually needed. Of course, the need can be limited by adding methods like polygons, circles and the like.
/ David Hedbor
Previous text:
2002-11-25 21:13: Subject: SDL
Does it really make a measurable difference, considering the overhead for the function calls etc? To me it appears to be operations on a far too low level to make efficient pike programs possible anyway.
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS
I'd say: Please add the bounds checking. It's really annoying when a pike program dumps core. A few extra comparisons shouldn't make much difference given the overhead of a pike function call.
/ Niels Möller ()
Previous text:
2002-11-25 20:59: Subject: SDL
I have now implemented and checked in SDL.Surface->set_pixel and get_pixel methods. Note that they do no boundary checking so if you write outside the surface... Well, go figure. I could add it but I'd rather avoid any checks I can for performance reasons...
/ David Hedbor
Agreed.
/ Henrik Grubbström (Lysator)
Previous text:
2002-11-26 12:28: Subject: SDL
I'd say: Please add the bounds checking. It's really annoying when a pike program dumps core. A few extra comparisons shouldn't make much difference given the overhead of a pike function call.
/ Niels Möller ()
Ok. Will do. On an unrelated note, could Pike's configure make sure to add a flag (whatever it is) to disable C99 in gcc? I got an error in checked in code because I declared a variable in the function body by mistake. Although it's a nice feature in general, it's not a good feature for a program like Pike.
/ David Hedbor
Previous text:
2002-11-26 12:28: Subject: SDL
I'd say: Please add the bounds checking. It's really annoying when a pike program dumps core. A few extra comparisons shouldn't make much difference given the overhead of a pike function call.
/ Niels Möller ()
Foo? It's an error to declare a variable in the body of a function?
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS
Previous text:
2002-11-26 19:14: Subject: SDL
Ok. Will do. On an unrelated note, could Pike's configure make sure to add a flag (whatever it is) to disable C99 in gcc? I got an error in checked in code because I declared a variable in the function body by mistake. Although it's a nice feature in general, it's not a good feature for a program like Pike.
/ David Hedbor
Foo? It's an error to declare a variable in the body of a function?
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS
Previous text:
2002-11-26 19:14: Subject: SDL
Ok. Will do. On an unrelated note, could Pike's configure make sure to add a flag (whatever it is) to disable C99 in gcc? I got an error in checked in code because I declared a variable in the function body by mistake. Although it's a nice feature in general, it's not a good feature for a program like Pike.
/ David Hedbor
Ok. Will do. On an unrelated note, could Pike's configure make sure to add a flag (whatever it is) to disable C99 in gcc? I got an error in checked in code because I declared a variable in the function body by mistake. Although it's a nice feature in general, it's not a good feature for a program like Pike.
/ David Hedbor
Previous text:
2002-11-26 12:28: Subject: SDL
I'd say: Please add the bounds checking. It's really annoying when a pike program dumps core. A few extra comparisons shouldn't make much difference given the overhead of a pike function call.
/ Niels Möller ()
pike-devel@lists.lysator.liu.se
-
David Hedbor ＠ Pike developers forum -
Henrik Grubbstr�m (Lysator) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum
-
Martin Nilsson (Hossnij) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum
-
Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS ＠ Pike developers forum
-
Niels M�ller () ＠ Pike (-) developers forum
-
Per Hedbor () ＠ Pike (-) developers forum