[Pixman] [PATCH 7/9] test: add "pixbuf" and "rpixbuf" to lowlevel-blt-bench

[Siarhei Siamashka]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 19:33:00 +0200
Nemanja Lukic <nemanja.lukic at rt-rk.com> wrote:

> Add necessary support to lowlevel-blt benchmark for benchmarking pixbuf and
> rpixbuf fast paths. bench_composite function now checks for pixbuf string in
> testname, and if that is detected, use same bits for src and mask images.
> ---
>  test/lowlevel-blt-bench.c |   11 +++++++++--
>  1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/test/lowlevel-blt-bench.c b/test/lowlevel-blt-bench.c
> index a1657ea..1049e21 100644
> --- a/test/lowlevel-blt-bench.c
> +++ b/test/lowlevel-blt-bench.c
> @@ -385,6 +385,7 @@ bench_composite (char * testname,
>      double                          t1, t2, t3, pix_cnt;
>      int64_t                         n, l1test_width, nlines;
>      double                             bytes_per_pix = 0;
> +    pixman_bool_t                   bench_pixbuf = FALSE;
>  
>      pixman_composite_func_t func = pixman_image_composite_wrapper;
>  
> @@ -422,16 +423,20 @@ bench_composite (char * testname,
>  
>      mask_img = NULL;
>      xmask_img = NULL;
> +    if (strcmp (testname, "pixbuf") == 0 || strcmp (testname, "rpixbuf") == 0)
> +    {
> +        bench_pixbuf = TRUE;
> +    }
>      if (!(mask_flags & SOLID_FLAG) && mask_fmt != PIXMAN_null)
>      {
>          bytes_per_pix += (mask_fmt >> 24) / ((op == PIXMAN_OP_SRC) ? 8.0 : 4.0);
>          mask_img = pixman_image_create_bits (mask_fmt,
>                                               WIDTH, HEIGHT,
> -                                             mask,
> +                                             bench_pixbuf ? src : mask,
>                                               WIDTH * 4);
>          xmask_img = pixman_image_create_bits (mask_fmt,
>                                               XWIDTH, XHEIGHT,
> -                                             mask,
> +                                             bench_pixbuf ? src : mask,
>                                               XWIDTH * 4);
>      }
>      else if (mask_fmt != PIXMAN_null)
> @@ -709,6 +714,8 @@ tests_tbl[] =
>      { "outrev_n_8888_x888_ca", PIXMAN_a8r8g8b8,    1, PIXMAN_OP_OUT_REV, PIXMAN_a8r8g8b8, 2, PIXMAN_x8r8g8b8 },
>      { "outrev_n_8888_8888_ca", PIXMAN_a8r8g8b8,    1, PIXMAN_OP_OUT_REV, PIXMAN_a8r8g8b8, 2, PIXMAN_a8r8g8b8 },
>      { "over_reverse_n_8888",   PIXMAN_a8r8g8b8,    0, PIXMAN_OP_OVER_REVERSE, PIXMAN_null, 0, PIXMAN_a8r8g8b8 },
> +    { "pixbuf",                PIXMAN_x8b8g8r8,    0, PIXMAN_OP_SRC,     PIXMAN_a8b8g8r8, 0, PIXMAN_a8r8g8b8 },
> +    { "rpixbuf",               PIXMAN_x8b8g8r8,    0, PIXMAN_OP_SRC,     PIXMAN_a8b8g8r8, 0, PIXMAN_a8b8g8r8 },
>  };

Your solution adds a rudimentary text strings parsing in addition to the
bit flags. And we get a mix of both. In the long run we might want
to drop bit flags and switch to text strings parsing for everything.

But your patch does the job for now.

-- 
Best regards,
Siarhei Siamashka