[GEM-dev] RGBA confusion...

chris clepper cgclepper at gmail.com
Wed May 28 18:39:02 CEST 2008


The problem with the pix_ objects is the MMX code on is fixed to a different
order than what OSX Intel uses.  For some objects this makes no difference,
but others require the components in a specific order.  So to fix some bug
complaints I swapped the byte order to match the MMX code, but this broke
other things so it was switched back.  Perhaps defining some MMX/SSE macros
for the order would sort this out?

I don't think there are any GL alpha problems at all.

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:25 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig <zmoelnig at iem.at>
wrote:

> as hinted in my last email, Gem seems to have different hardcoded ideas
> about what RGBA means (esp. on OSX)
>
> the main confusion is about which "type" to use:
> GL_UNSIGNED_INT_8_8_8_8_REV vs GL_UNSIGNED_INT_8_8_8_8
> the solution seems to be simple (_REV on ppc, normal on i686) but it
> seems to be done inconsistently in the source code, thus resulting in
> all the alpha problems marius has reported.
>
> i have created a wiki-page that tries to explain the technical
> implementation of Gem's standard colorspaces, which can be found at
> http://gem.iem.at/documentation/GemWiki/ColorSpace
>
> i have filled this page to my best knowledge, but i would be glad if
> somebody who knows what they are doing could have a look at it and
> confirm (or correct) everything (esp. those lines marked with "?")
>
> fgmasdr
> IOhannes
>
> _______________________________________________
> GEM-dev mailing list
> GEM-dev at iem.at
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/gem-dev/attachments/20080528/07baf8aa/attachment.htm>


More information about the GEM-dev mailing list