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