Re: [Paracomp-devel] Crash in pcSystemFinalize

[Stefan E. <eil...@gm...>]

On 16. May 2008, at 12:28, Shree Kumar wrote:

> Hi Stefan,
>
> On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 11:14 +0000, Stefan Eilemann wrote:
>>>
>>> PC rev 63 seems to be faster than Eq rev 1880. Am I
>>> missing something ?
>>
>> No - I think it is due to the fact that Eq supports different sizes
>> between the images, which makes the code a bit more complex.
>>
>
> Can you explain what you mean by "Eq supports different sizes between
> the images" ?
>
> Paracomp does it too. It only expects the width and height of the
> compositing regions to match for all the source & destination  
> operands.
> The test program you have doesn't exercise this case.

This is true, since this case does not yet happen in Equalizer.

We are planning a region-of-interest extension in Eq, where each draw  
operation specifies the screen-space area covered by data, which would  
yield to different sizes in the source images.

>> I assume you meant rev 62?!
>>
>
> No I meant 63. I observe the following relation in terms of  
> performance
> (I've quoted the table below):
>
> PC rev 62 < eq rev 1880 < PC rev 63
>
> Essentially, rev 63 = rev 62 + using your compositing code from rev  
> 1880
> for your particular test case.



I see. I am not so worried about 'eq rev 1880 < PC rev 63' due to the  
'skip' calculations in Eq's compositor.


HTH,

Stefan.
-- 
http://www.eyescale.ch
http://www.equalizergraphics.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/eilemann