<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/6/21 Chris Wilson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chris@chris-wilson.co.uk">chris@chris-wilson.co.uk</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> <div class="im">On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:23:50 +0900, Taekyun Kim <<a href="mailto:podain77@gmail.com">podain77@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> ><br> > Because _cairo_image_surface_fixup_unbounded() just clears area<br> > between bounded and unbounded, we should give tight bounded extents<br> > to it when boxes contains single box and there's no clip region.<br> <br> </div>And here extents->bounded should already equal the box. So where is that<br> discrepancy coming from?<br> -Chris<br> <font color="#888888"><br> --<br> Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre<br> </font></blockquote></div><br><br><div>extents->bounded is calculated using fill extents function.</div><div>If we have two overlapping rectangle paths, then it will be reduced to a single</div><div>box by tessellation. But fill extents is calculated before tessellation, so </div> <div>extents->bounded might be larger than actual filling geometry. Thus, </div><div>extents->bounded might not be the same even with a single box.</div><div>Please see question no. 4 in following thread.</div><div> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/cairo/2011-June/022027.html">http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/cairo/2011-June/022027.html</a></div><div> <br>-- <br>Best Regards,<div>Taekyun Kim</div><br> </div>