From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=47869 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OEoSF-0008Pw-8a
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 May 2010 14:57:20 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <blauwirbel@gmail.com>) id 1OEoSD-0006f9-PD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 May 2010 14:57:19 -0400
Received: from mail-px0-f173.google.com ([209.85.212.173]:34579)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <blauwirbel@gmail.com>) id 1OEoSD-0006et-KW
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 May 2010 14:57:17 -0400
Received: by pxi19 with SMTP id 19so3769730pxi.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 19 May 2010 11:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4BF39E72.6070906@redhat.com>
References: <1273063904-6028-1-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com>
	<1273063904-6028-2-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com>
	<u2qf43fc5581005061112y316555c7j3e69b22a122b5ed2@mail.gmail.com>
	<4BE3BBA1.3010007@redhat.com>
	<m2pf43fc5581005070823kfc6f0117s22bd92428bfabb5c@mail.gmail.com>
	<4BF39E72.6070906@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 21:57:15 +0300
Message-ID: <AANLkTilmb4tTUtzhQE6utAMMDdoYDl0cIQlr3FfuJw4C@mail.gmail.com>
From: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/3] cursor: add cursor functions.
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 5/19/10, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > Then there would be no need of parsing.
> > > >
> > >
> > >  You would need _two_ bitmaps (e.g. mask and cursor, so that mask=1
> gives
> > > transparent, mask=0 cursor=0 gives black and mask=0 cursor=1 gives
> white).
> > >
> >
> > Yes, but it's still packed more efficiently.
> >
>
>  Well.  You can't have both.  We can have a efficiently packed format (i.e.
> two bitmaps).  Or we can do it in a way which doesn't need parsing, but that
> wouldn't be the most compact format ...

You're right, so packing or introducing a small conversion function is
not critical. I'd still prefer a standard format if possible.

> > There's yet another way:
> > #define _ 0,
> > #define X 0xff000000,
> > #define o 0xffffffff,
> > {
> >  _ _ _ X o X _ _ _
> > }
> > #undef _
> > #undef X
> > #undef o
> >
>
>  Neat idea ;)
>
>  cheers,
>   Gerd
>
>