try texture-maker to generalize stretching for npot and min-tex-size

try texture-maker to generalize stretching for npot and min-tex-size

BUG=skia:

Committed: https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/b5d32635345d6a974ad2ceb826c3bfb98107ab79

[reed1, 2015-09-28 21:04:16]

reed@google.com changed reviewers:
+ bsalomon@google.com

[reed1, 2015-09-28 21:04:17]

WIP

[reed2, 2015-09-29 10:21:56]

The CQ bit was checked by reed@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-09-29 10:22:00]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1376603002/1
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1376603002/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-09-29 10:22:50]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-09-29 10:22:51]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  Build-Ubuntu-GCC-Mips-Debug-Android-Trybot on client.skia.compile (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/client.skia.compile/builders/Build-Ubuntu-GCC-Mip...)

[bsalomon, 2015-09-29 13:23:24]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1376603002/diff/1/src/gpu/SkGr.cpp
File src/gpu/SkGr.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1376603002/diff/1/src/gpu/SkGr.cpp#newcode540
src/gpu/SkGr.cpp:540: class GrTextureMaker {
Is this going to be exposed outside of this cpp? Just curious.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1376603002/diff/1/src/gpu/SkGr.cpp#newcode550
src/gpu/SkGr.cpp:550: virtual GrTexture* peekTexture() = 0;
wonder about all these virtuals... this guy can get called with high frequency,
e.g. a client loop on drawBitmapRect().

What if the class had a field for the cache key that the subclass constructor
initialized (or not if say its volatile). Might remove the need for
isVolatile(), imageID(), and subset(). notifyCachedStretchCached(),
onRefCachedTexture(), and getROBitmap() should be really rare, so not worried
about that.

I think it's true (and worthy of comment) that it's ok for getROBitmap() to fail
if peekTexture() returns a non-null texture.

[reed1, 2015-09-29 17:41:17]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1376603002/diff/1/src/gpu/SkGr.cpp
File src/gpu/SkGr.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1376603002/diff/1/src/gpu/SkGr.cpp#newcode540
src/gpu/SkGr.cpp:540: class GrTextureMaker {
On 2015/09/29 13:23:24, bsalomon wrote:
> Is this going to be exposed outside of this cpp? Just curious.

Not sure, but likely (for generators, etc.) so I will move to a header.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1376603002/diff/1/src/gpu/SkGr.cpp#newcode550
src/gpu/SkGr.cpp:550: virtual GrTexture* peekTexture() = 0;
On 2015/09/29 13:23:24, bsalomon wrote:
> wonder about all these virtuals... this guy can get called with high
frequency,
> e.g. a client loop on drawBitmapRect().
> 
> What if the class had a field for the cache key that the subclass constructor
> initialized (or not if say its volatile). Might remove the need for
> isVolatile(), imageID(), and subset(). notifyCachedStretchCached(),
> onRefCachedTexture(), and getROBitmap() should be really rare, so not worried
> about that.
> 
> I think it's true (and worthy of comment) that it's ok for getROBitmap() to
fail
> if peekTexture() returns a non-null texture.

Agree to all concerns. Will start with trying to return an entire key

[reed1, 2015-09-29 19:19:42]

ptal

[bsalomon, 2015-09-29 19:23:30]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/1376603002/diff/20001/src/gpu/SkGr.cpp
File src/gpu/SkGr.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1376603002/diff/20001/src/gpu/SkGr.cpp#newcod...
src/gpu/SkGr.cpp:571: *  - onGetROBitmkap()
ROBitmap

https://codereview.chromium.org/1376603002/diff/20001/src/gpu/SkGr.cpp#newcod...
src/gpu/SkGr.cpp:616: 
extra \n

[reed1, 2015-09-29 19:38:13]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1376603002/diff/20001/src/gpu/SkGr.cpp
File src/gpu/SkGr.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1376603002/diff/20001/src/gpu/SkGr.cpp#newcod...
src/gpu/SkGr.cpp:571: *  - onGetROBitmkap()
On 2015/09/29 19:23:29, bsalomon wrote:
> ROBitmap

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1376603002/diff/20001/src/gpu/SkGr.cpp#newcod...
src/gpu/SkGr.cpp:616: 
On 2015/09/29 19:23:29, bsalomon wrote:
> extra \n

Done.

[reed1, 2015-09-29 19:38:18]

The CQ bit was checked by reed@google.com to run a CQ dry run

[reed1, 2015-09-29 19:38:32]

reed@google.com changed reviewers:
+ robertphillips@google.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-09-29 19:38:32]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1376603002/60001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1376603002/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-09-29 19:45:45]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-09-29 19:45:46]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[reed1, 2015-09-29 20:36:05]

The CQ bit was checked by reed@google.com

[reed1, 2015-09-29 20:36:06]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from bsalomon@google.com
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1376603002/#ps60001
(title: " ")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-09-29 20:36:17]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1376603002/60001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1376603002/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-09-29 20:36:53]

Committed patchset #4 (id:60001) as
https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/b5d32635345d6a974ad2ceb826c3bfb98107ab79