Submitted by Emil Velikov on April 24, 2016, 6:22 p.m.

Message ID | 1461522177-5796-1-git-send-email-emil.l.velikov@gmail.com |
---|---|

State | Under Review |

Series | "Series without cover letter" |

Headers | show |

diff --git a/pixman/pixman-matrix.c b/pixman/pixman-matrix.c index 65b3d32..117015b 100644 --- a/pixman/pixman-matrix.c +++ b/pixman/pixman-matrix.c @@ -393,9 +393,7 @@ pixman_transform_point_3d (const struct pixman_transform *transform, vector->vector[1] = tmp.v[1]; vector->vector[2] = tmp.v[2]; - return vector->vector[0] == tmp.v[0] && - vector->vector[1] == tmp.v[1] && - vector->vector[2] == tmp.v[2]; + return TRUE; } PIXMAN_EXPORT pixman_bool_t @@ -414,9 +412,7 @@ pixman_transform_point (const struct pixman_transform *transform, vector->vector[1] = tmp.v[1]; vector->vector[2] = tmp.v[2]; - return vector->vector[0] == tmp.v[0] && - vector->vector[1] == tmp.v[1] && - vector->vector[2] == tmp.v[2]; + return TRUE; } PIXMAN_EXPORT pixman_bool_t

Doesn't this check for NaNs? On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote: > With commit ed39992564b "Use pixman_transform_point_31_16() from > pixman_transform_point()" we added some strange hunks. > > Namely: we copy the data from the internal storage to the user vector > only to compare them immediately after. > > Cc: Siarhei Siamashka <siarhei.siamashka@gmail.com> > --- > > Siarhei, what is the intent with the original commit ? Any ideas why > things crash ? > > Seemingly this can be dropped/replaced with TRUE, yet it causes one of > the tests () to segfault in the optimised SSE2 codepath - > scaled_bilinear_scanline_sse2_8888_8888_SRC. > > BILINEAR_INTERPOLATE_ONE_PIXEL -> BILINEAR_INTERPOLATE_ONE_PIXEL_HELPER > > Regards, > Emil > --- > > pixman/pixman-matrix.c | 8 ++------ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/pixman/pixman-matrix.c b/pixman/pixman-matrix.c > index 65b3d32..117015b 100644 > --- a/pixman/pixman-matrix.c > +++ b/pixman/pixman-matrix.c > @@ -393,9 +393,7 @@ pixman_transform_point_3d (const struct > pixman_transform *transform, > vector->vector[1] = tmp.v[1]; > vector->vector[2] = tmp.v[2]; > > - return vector->vector[0] == tmp.v[0] && > - vector->vector[1] == tmp.v[1] && > - vector->vector[2] == tmp.v[2]; > + return TRUE; > } > > PIXMAN_EXPORT pixman_bool_t > @@ -414,9 +412,7 @@ pixman_transform_point (const struct pixman_transform > *transform, > vector->vector[1] = tmp.v[1]; > vector->vector[2] = tmp.v[2]; > > - return vector->vector[0] == tmp.v[0] && > - vector->vector[1] == tmp.v[1] && > - vector->vector[2] == tmp.v[2]; > + return TRUE; > } > > PIXMAN_EXPORT pixman_bool_t > -- > 2.8.0 > > _______________________________________________ > Pixman mailing list > Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman >

The old code is comparing pixman_fixed_48_16_t values to pixman_fixed_16_16_t values, thus it is checking for truncation of overflow values. It would probably be better to clamp these overflowed values, like pixman_transform_point_31_16 is doing to clamp to the pixman_fixed_48_16 result. Right now the result is an odd mix of clamping and modulus. A rewrite to go directly to clamped pixman_fixed_16_16 values would be even better. On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Petr Kobalíček <kobalicek.petr@gmail.com> wrote: > Doesn't this check for NaNs? > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> With commit ed39992564b "Use pixman_transform_point_31_16() from >> pixman_transform_point()" we added some strange hunks. >> >> Namely: we copy the data from the internal storage to the user vector >> only to compare them immediately after. >> >> Cc: Siarhei Siamashka <siarhei.siamashka@gmail.com> >> --- >> >> Siarhei, what is the intent with the original commit ? Any ideas why >> things crash ? >> >> Seemingly this can be dropped/replaced with TRUE, yet it causes one of >> the tests () to segfault in the optimised SSE2 codepath - >> scaled_bilinear_scanline_sse2_8888_8888_SRC. >> >> BILINEAR_INTERPOLATE_ONE_PIXEL -> BILINEAR_INTERPOLATE_ONE_PIXEL_HELPER >> >> Regards, >> Emil >> --- >> >> pixman/pixman-matrix.c | 8 ++------ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/pixman/pixman-matrix.c b/pixman/pixman-matrix.c >> index 65b3d32..117015b 100644 >> --- a/pixman/pixman-matrix.c >> +++ b/pixman/pixman-matrix.c >> @@ -393,9 +393,7 @@ pixman_transform_point_3d (const struct >> pixman_transform *transform, >> vector->vector[1] = tmp.v[1]; >> vector->vector[2] = tmp.v[2]; >> >> - return vector->vector[0] == tmp.v[0] && >> - vector->vector[1] == tmp.v[1] && >> - vector->vector[2] == tmp.v[2]; >> + return TRUE; >> } >> >> PIXMAN_EXPORT pixman_bool_t >> @@ -414,9 +412,7 @@ pixman_transform_point (const struct pixman_transform >> *transform, >> vector->vector[1] = tmp.v[1]; >> vector->vector[2] = tmp.v[2]; >> >> - return vector->vector[0] == tmp.v[0] && >> - vector->vector[1] == tmp.v[1] && >> - vector->vector[2] == tmp.v[2]; >> + return TRUE; >> } >> >> PIXMAN_EXPORT pixman_bool_t >> -- >> 2.8.0 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pixman mailing list >> Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org >> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Pixman mailing list > Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman > >

On 26 April 2016 at 19:12, Bill Spitzak <spitzak@gmail.com> wrote: > The old code is comparing pixman_fixed_48_16_t values to > pixman_fixed_16_16_t values, thus it is checking for truncation of overflow > values. > Indeed it does. I'll grep more before asking silly questions ;-) > It would probably be better to clamp these overflowed values, like > pixman_transform_point_31_16 is doing to clamp to the pixman_fixed_48_16 > result. Right now the result is an odd mix of clamping and modulus. A > rewrite to go directly to clamped pixman_fixed_16_16 values would be even > better. > Sounds like a plan. Sadly I doubt I'll get to it any time soon. Thanks Emil

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 09:56:44 +0100 Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote: > On 26 April 2016 at 19:12, Bill Spitzak <spitzak@gmail.com> wrote: > > The old code is comparing pixman_fixed_48_16_t values to > > pixman_fixed_16_16_t values, thus it is checking for truncation of overflow > > values. > > > Indeed it does. I'll grep more before asking silly questions ;-) > > > It would probably be better to clamp these overflowed values, like > > pixman_transform_point_31_16 is doing to clamp to the pixman_fixed_48_16 > > result. Right now the result is an odd mix of clamping and modulus. A > > rewrite to go directly to clamped pixman_fixed_16_16 values would be even > > better. > > > Sounds like a plan. Sadly I doubt I'll get to it any time soon. Wasn't the point of the boolean return from these functions to tell the caller to drop what it is doing because it cannot be done properly? Thanks, pq

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 09:56:44 +0100 > Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 26 April 2016 at 19:12, Bill Spitzak <spitzak@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The old code is comparing pixman_fixed_48_16_t values to > > > pixman_fixed_16_16_t values, thus it is checking for truncation of > overflow > > > values. > > > > > Indeed it does. I'll grep more before asking silly questions ;-) > > > > > It would probably be better to clamp these overflowed values, like > > > pixman_transform_point_31_16 is doing to clamp to the > pixman_fixed_48_16 > > > result. Right now the result is an odd mix of clamping and modulus. A > > > rewrite to go directly to clamped pixman_fixed_16_16 values would be > even > > > better. > > > > > Sounds like a plan. Sadly I doubt I'll get to it any time soon. > > Wasn't the point of the boolean return from these functions to tell the > caller to drop what it is doing because it cannot be done properly? > Dropping a fill is a lot worse than trying to simulate it using the clamped path. It will produce a wrong result if one of the edges connected to a clamped point passes through the clip, but this often does not happen, and the transition to the wrong result is gradual as the point moves outside the clamped region. More importantly the caller cannot do anything with the return values right now, as they are modulus MAX_16_16+1. Even the direction they are in is lost.

On 27 April 2016 at 18:46, Bill Spitzak <spitzak@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 09:56:44 +0100 >> Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On 26 April 2016 at 19:12, Bill Spitzak <spitzak@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > The old code is comparing pixman_fixed_48_16_t values to >> > > pixman_fixed_16_16_t values, thus it is checking for truncation of >> > > overflow >> > > values. >> > > >> > Indeed it does. I'll grep more before asking silly questions ;-) >> > >> > > It would probably be better to clamp these overflowed values, like >> > > pixman_transform_point_31_16 is doing to clamp to the >> > > pixman_fixed_48_16 >> > > result. Right now the result is an odd mix of clamping and modulus. A >> > > rewrite to go directly to clamped pixman_fixed_16_16 values would be >> > > even >> > > better. >> > > >> > Sounds like a plan. Sadly I doubt I'll get to it any time soon. >> >> Wasn't the point of the boolean return from these functions to tell the >> caller to drop what it is doing because it cannot be done properly? > > > Dropping a fill is a lot worse than trying to simulate it using the clamped > path. It will produce a wrong result if one of the edges connected to a > clamped point passes through the clip, but this often does not happen, and > the transition to the wrong result is gradual as the point moves outside the > clamped region. > > More importantly the caller cannot do anything with the return values right > now, as they are modulus MAX_16_16+1. Even the direction they are in is > lost. > I think that keeping the user provided memory as-is when the function does not succeed is a good idea. Afaics currently the contents get overwritten regardless of the result. This is what you guys were on about, right ? Or perhaps you're thinking about spinning v2 of the function with different signature/behaviour ? -Emil

On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 10:15:37 +0100 Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27 April 2016 at 18:46, Bill Spitzak <spitzak@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 09:56:44 +0100 > >> Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > On 26 April 2016 at 19:12, Bill Spitzak <spitzak@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > The old code is comparing pixman_fixed_48_16_t values to > >> > > pixman_fixed_16_16_t values, thus it is checking for truncation of > >> > > overflow > >> > > values. > >> > > > >> > Indeed it does. I'll grep more before asking silly questions ;-) > >> > > >> > > It would probably be better to clamp these overflowed values, like > >> > > pixman_transform_point_31_16 is doing to clamp to the > >> > > pixman_fixed_48_16 > >> > > result. Right now the result is an odd mix of clamping and modulus. A > >> > > rewrite to go directly to clamped pixman_fixed_16_16 values would be > >> > > even > >> > > better. > >> > > > >> > Sounds like a plan. Sadly I doubt I'll get to it any time soon. > >> > >> Wasn't the point of the boolean return from these functions to tell the > >> caller to drop what it is doing because it cannot be done properly? > > > > > > Dropping a fill is a lot worse than trying to simulate it using the clamped > > path. It will produce a wrong result if one of the edges connected to a > > clamped point passes through the clip, but this often does not happen, and > > the transition to the wrong result is gradual as the point moves outside the > > clamped region. > > > > More importantly the caller cannot do anything with the return values right > > now, as they are modulus MAX_16_16+1. Even the direction they are in is > > lost. > > > I think that keeping the user provided memory as-is when the function > does not succeed is a good idea. > Afaics currently the contents get overwritten regardless of the result. > > This is what you guys were on about, right ? Or perhaps you're > thinking about spinning v2 of the function with different > signature/behaviour ? Hi Emil, I think the conclusion was that the comparisons are not useless, and this patch should be dropped. You noted it yourself that this patch causes a regression in the test suite. Thanks, pq

On 29 April 2016 at 11:35, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 10:15:37 +0100 > Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 27 April 2016 at 18:46, Bill Spitzak <spitzak@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 09:56:44 +0100 >> >> Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On 26 April 2016 at 19:12, Bill Spitzak <spitzak@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > The old code is comparing pixman_fixed_48_16_t values to >> >> > > pixman_fixed_16_16_t values, thus it is checking for truncation of >> >> > > overflow >> >> > > values. >> >> > > >> >> > Indeed it does. I'll grep more before asking silly questions ;-) >> >> > >> >> > > It would probably be better to clamp these overflowed values, like >> >> > > pixman_transform_point_31_16 is doing to clamp to the >> >> > > pixman_fixed_48_16 >> >> > > result. Right now the result is an odd mix of clamping and modulus. A >> >> > > rewrite to go directly to clamped pixman_fixed_16_16 values would be >> >> > > even >> >> > > better. >> >> > > >> >> > Sounds like a plan. Sadly I doubt I'll get to it any time soon. >> >> >> >> Wasn't the point of the boolean return from these functions to tell the >> >> caller to drop what it is doing because it cannot be done properly? >> > >> > >> > Dropping a fill is a lot worse than trying to simulate it using the clamped >> > path. It will produce a wrong result if one of the edges connected to a >> > clamped point passes through the clip, but this often does not happen, and >> > the transition to the wrong result is gradual as the point moves outside the >> > clamped region. >> > >> > More importantly the caller cannot do anything with the return values right >> > now, as they are modulus MAX_16_16+1. Even the direction they are in is >> > lost. >> > >> I think that keeping the user provided memory as-is when the function >> does not succeed is a good idea. >> Afaics currently the contents get overwritten regardless of the result. >> >> This is what you guys were on about, right ? Or perhaps you're >> thinking about spinning v2 of the function with different >> signature/behaviour ? > > Hi Emil, > > I think the conclusion was that the comparisons are not useless, and > this patch should be dropped. You noted it yourself that this patch > causes a regression in the test suite. > Fully agree on both points. Just trying to understand what you and Bill are talking about and suggest that if one changes things, would be nice to avoid "feeding garbage" back to the user [on error]. Thanks Emil

If the comparison fails, the returned values are modulus fixed_16_16, rather than clamped. I think that gives a lot less possibilities for the calling code to recover from or simulate the results of the out-of-range value. On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote: > On 29 April 2016 at 11:35, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 10:15:37 +0100 > > Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 27 April 2016 at 18:46, Bill Spitzak <spitzak@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 09:56:44 +0100 > >> >> Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > On 26 April 2016 at 19:12, Bill Spitzak <spitzak@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > > The old code is comparing pixman_fixed_48_16_t values to > >> >> > > pixman_fixed_16_16_t values, thus it is checking for truncation > of > >> >> > > overflow > >> >> > > values. > >> >> > > > >> >> > Indeed it does. I'll grep more before asking silly questions ;-) > >> >> > > >> >> > > It would probably be better to clamp these overflowed values, > like > >> >> > > pixman_transform_point_31_16 is doing to clamp to the > >> >> > > pixman_fixed_48_16 > >> >> > > result. Right now the result is an odd mix of clamping and > modulus. A > >> >> > > rewrite to go directly to clamped pixman_fixed_16_16 values > would be > >> >> > > even > >> >> > > better. > >> >> > > > >> >> > Sounds like a plan. Sadly I doubt I'll get to it any time soon. > >> >> > >> >> Wasn't the point of the boolean return from these functions to tell > the > >> >> caller to drop what it is doing because it cannot be done properly? > >> > > >> > > >> > Dropping a fill is a lot worse than trying to simulate it using the > clamped > >> > path. It will produce a wrong result if one of the edges connected to > a > >> > clamped point passes through the clip, but this often does not > happen, and > >> > the transition to the wrong result is gradual as the point moves > outside the > >> > clamped region. > >> > > >> > More importantly the caller cannot do anything with the return values > right > >> > now, as they are modulus MAX_16_16+1. Even the direction they are in > is > >> > lost. > >> > > >> I think that keeping the user provided memory as-is when the function > >> does not succeed is a good idea. > >> Afaics currently the contents get overwritten regardless of the result. > >> > >> This is what you guys were on about, right ? Or perhaps you're > >> thinking about spinning v2 of the function with different > >> signature/behaviour ? > > > > Hi Emil, > > > > I think the conclusion was that the comparisons are not useless, and > > this patch should be dropped. You noted it yourself that this patch > > causes a regression in the test suite. > > > Fully agree on both points. Just trying to understand what you and > Bill are talking about and suggest that if one changes things, would > be nice to avoid "feeding garbage" back to the user [on error]. > > Thanks > Emil >