[SDL] SDL_ttf font -> gl texture

[Joseph Carter]

On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 10:45:04PM -0500, Jp Calderone wrote:
>  Quite true that it has to pick one format - unless it renders to a given
> SDL_Surface, in which case things will end up in whatever format the user
> likes, probably at some performance penalty though - but I don't follow
> how you've decided that ARGB is as good or better than most.  I have
> always taken pixel format strings such as these to give the contents *and*
> the order of the pixels, and this  is the order I have always seen them
> presented in.  My experience in this area is probably more limited than
> that of many on this list though, so if you could elaborate as to why
> ARGB is superior to other formats, perhaps that would help my
> understanding of things.  Presently, I can only tell that this format
> makes it difficult to use SDL_ttf output with OGL.

LordHavoc has reminded me that Win32 (particularly DX) uses ARGB for
everything as a Uint.  Of course, wonce you accomidate the little endian
architecture, it becomes BGRA, which all cards do support since windoze
requires it in DX.  It's about as common as Multitexture on cards.

-- 
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd at bluecherry.net>            Free software developer

* SynrG notes that the number of configuration questions to answer in
  sendmail is NON-TRIVIAL

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 273 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl-libsdl.org/attachments/20011030/1ae3304f/attachment.pgp>