- From: K. Gadd <kg@luminance.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:04:38 -0800
- To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Cc: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, Marcus Geelnard <mage@opera.com>, Paul Adenot <padenot@mozilla.com>, Jukka Jylänki <jujjyl@gmail.com>, "public-audio@w3.org" <public-audio@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAPJwq3X8hLgGwmesCz6MQ_OCEAO6f=Vy5jRY1VWCq7rYtnr0nw@mail.gmail.com>
I'm referring to http://fgiesen.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/texture-tiling-and-swizzling/, maybe the bug you mentioned is not an example of that. If it isn't, then I'd agree that it is a bug and a terrible thing to do to anyone. :D Is behavior that actually mutates texture formats common across vendors? Or is it just something that one vendor does because they can do whatever they want? If this is actually the state of the art and accepted, then I will have to retract my statement about texture formats (and add another item to my list of OpenGL gripes...) My implied reason for swizzling being acceptable, while format conversion is not, is that swizzling 100% preserves data, even if the layout of individual elements is altered. If you know the swizzle format you can trivially access any data you want, unmodified, by permuting the address(es) appropriately. Format conversion is a different matter and in some cases is also lossy, which is why it's not so great for an implementation to force you to allow it to convert formats for you. It's great as an optional thing, though, since in many cases you don't care what format you have... I think the current web audio default is totally fine as long as there is some way to keep audio in a dense format, whether it's int16 buffers, some sort of PCM approach, or decoding on-the-fly from mpeg/vorbis/opus (though I would expect the latter to be absurdly expensive, in comparison). On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote: > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:50 PM, K. Gadd <kg@luminance.org> wrote: > >> Swizzling is not a format conversion, it is a layout conversion. I >> mentioned these in particular (actual arrangement). Are you referring to >> something else? >> > > I didn't realize that's what you meant by "arrangement". > > Rob > -- > Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni > le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa > stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, > 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp > waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w >
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2014 05:05:48 UTC