|
|
|
This thread is locked; no one can reply to it.
|
| convert pixel formats |
|
Mark Oates
Member #1,146
March 2001
 |
basically, I'm trying to figure out how to finish (do it correctly) this function : inline uint32_t make_argb_8888(ALLEGRO_COLOR &col) { unsigned char r = (int)(255 * col.r); unsigned char g = (int)(255 * col.g); unsigned char b = (int)(255 * col.b); unsigned char a = (int)(255 * col.a); // uh.... }
Something makes me think I should do |
|
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
 |
(a << 24) | (r << 16) | (g << 8) | b |
|
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
 |
If you had these four chars as a struct in a union with an int, you could skip the addition and multiplication in the return value by using the address offsets as a "multiplication" substitute.. IIRC that's the way A4 did it. You might look into SSE if you don't care about portability. They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
|
Mark Oates
Member #1,146
March 2001
|
Fantastic! Thanks Matthew. My result: unsigned char r, g, b, a; inline uint32_t make_argb_8888(ALLEGRO_COLOR &col) { al_unmap_rgba(col, &r, &g, &b, &a); return (a << 24) | (r << 16) | (g << 8) | b; } Would I get any real benefits using a union? It seems like it would just involve more shuffling and processor time. |
|
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
I tried timing them with clock(), but they seemed to run about equal. I didn't check that the logic is correct, but as long as I don't overrun arrays the times should be about what the "right" way would take. click paperclip to get the test proglet. [EDIT] I had a brain fart blowing out the cache, naturally they'd be the same, but no matter what I do they run about equal (or at least bounce around as to which is faster). See t_v2.c in paperclip. In short, Matthew's version would be better for conciseness. They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
|
Dustin Dettmer
Member #3,935
October 2003
 |
You should declare r, g, b, and a inside the function. |
|
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
I thought I did They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
|
Mark Oates
Member #1,146
March 2001
|
Quote: I thought I did He's talkin to me. Wouldn't that slow down the function? |
|
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
The idea of locals on the stack being faster is due to the cache line already being loaded due to saving the return address. I'm not sure how an inlined function would work though, maybe I should check. They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
|
Dustin Dettmer
Member #3,935
October 2003
|
It should speed it up. Stuff inside a function goes into the cache, which is faster to play with than regular memory. Also a smart compiler could turn them into registers -- which would be even faster. |
|
Mark Oates
Member #1,146
March 2001
|
|
|
Unless you mean the global arrays of floats and ints, simulating buffers in memory.
