|
|
|
This thread is locked; no one can reply to it.
|
| A5 feature: push & pop |
|
komons
Member #11,083
June 2009
|
Hi, is it possible to make in future release something like this: push_clipping_rectangle(); set_clipping_rectangle( xx, yy, zz, ww ); [draw something] pop_clipping_rectangle(); or push_target_bitmap(); set_target_bitmap( buffer ); [draw something] pop_target_bitmap(); It'd be very usefull. |
|
raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010
|
It seems like it would be easy for somebody to write it themselves, using singly linked lists. |
|
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
 |
I've suggested al_push_state(int state) and al_pop_state() before. And yes, it's easy to do yourself. |
|
komons
Member #11,083
June 2009
|
I did it, but it would be as standard. |
|
Mark Oates
Member #1,146
March 2001
 |
I like to experiment. Here's the method I'm trying out now: 1#include <vector>
2
3inline void af_push_state(int flags);
4inline void af_pop_state();
5
6class AllegroState
7{
8private:
9 static AllegroState *instance;
10 AllegroState() { }
11public:
12 static std::vector<ALLEGRO_STATE *> allegro_state;
13 static AllegroState *get_instance()
14 {
15 if (!instance) instance = new AllegroState();
16 return instance;
17 }
18 static void push_state(int flags)
19 {
20 allegro_state.push_back(new ALLEGRO_STATE);
21 al_store_state(allegro_state.back(), flags);
22 }
23 static void push_state()
24 {
25 if (allegro_state.empty()) return;
26 al_restore_state(allegro_state.back());
27 delete allegro_state.back();
28 allegro_state.pop_back();
29 }
30};
31AllegroState *AllegroState::instance = NULL;
32std::vector<ALLEGRO_STATE *> AllegroState::allegro_state;
33
34inline void af_push_state(int flags) { return AllegroState::get_instance()->push_state(flags); }
35inline void af_pop_state() { return AllegroState::get_instance()->push_state(); }
The question I have is, wouldn't it be faster to have the ALLEGRO_STATE structure inside your function and not push/pop? I can't answer this because I don't know how/if variables are allocated/created/stored/reused inside functions at runtime. But using the push/pop method definitely allocates and deallocates the memory, which I imagine would be the slower option. -- |
|
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
|
static ALLEGRO_STATE foo[100]; static ALLEGRO_STATE *bar = foo; void push(int f) { al_store_state(bar++, f); } void pop() { al_restore_state(--bar); }
|
|
Mark Oates
Member #1,146
March 2001
|
Where's the fun in that? Not to mention you're using... And what about all the stupid people who pop without a push? or push past 100 elements? Think of the children!? -- |
|
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
|
In practice, you'd put some asserts in there when running in debug mode. There's no need to make them production code checks. |
|
Mark Oates
Member #1,146
March 2001
|
So it's assumed that by the time you're ready for release, the asserts will have exposed use-cases (all possible ones, presumably) in your program and thus you disable them in release to improve speed? -- |
|
Jonatan Hedborg
Member #4,886
July 2004
 |
Mark Oates said: So it's assumed that by the time you're ready for release, the asserts will have exposed use-cases (all possible ones, presumably) in your program and thus you disable them in release to improve speed? Wouldn't it be pretty hard to handle an error caused by miss-use of this stack in run-time anyway?
|
|
GullRaDriel
Member #3,861
September 2003
 |
exit( FAILURE ); ? "Code is like shit - it only smells if it is not yours" |
|
|
... globals... ghasp!