Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Sw vs. Hw BitBlit (CharBLT)
Message-ID: <1988Aug13.205229.24467@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <399@ma.diab.se> <76700044@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <1848@titan.camcon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 88 20:52:29 GMT

In article <1848@titan.camcon.co.uk> anc@camcon.co.uk (Adrian Cockcroft) writes:
>The Intel 82786 has a charblt instruction. There are two forms, in the nicest
>one you define a font to the chip, up to 256 16x16 pixel characters...

So if my characters are, say, 17x17, I can't use it?  This is precisely the
sort of stupid restriction that makes people forget the chip and do it in
software instead, to save the hassle of deciding when the hardware is
actually useful.

>... (the font can be kerned for italic)....

How is the kerning defined?  10-1 it's some sloppy kludge.
-- 
Intel CPUs are not defective,  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
they just act that way.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu