Path: chuka.playstation.co.uk!news From: Alex Herbert Newsgroups: scee.yaroze.beginners Subject: Re: GpuPacketArea query. Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 19:08:33 +0000 Organization: PlayStation Net Yaroze (SCEE) Lines: 39 Message-ID: <355C84A0.ADE95B52@ndirect.co.uk> References: <35557807.6E248247@chowfam.demon.co.uk> <3558DF85.7C89DA42@ndirect.co.uk> <3559D87E.D5C1EBD1@chowfam.demon.co.uk> Reply-To: aherbert@ndirect.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: dialin2-11.ndirect.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) To: James Chow James Chow wrote: > Maybe the original post wasn't too clear. > Let me try again. > > Why does, declaring any of the following > PACKET GpuPktArea[2][31]; or > PACKET GpuPktArea[2][63]; or > PACKET GpuPktArea[2][255]; or > PACKET GpuPktArea[2][511]; or > PACKET GpuPktArea[2][1023]; > > (...you get the idea...) > > lock up the program? > Even if it is just one line. Sorry, I was talking crap in my last posting anyway. I saw the 2^n thing and started thinking Ordering Tables instead of GPU packets. Doh! Anyhow your declarations seem fine. Personally, I allocate packet space with malloc() rather than using arrays, but I originally started with a [2][4096] array which worked without worries. I am interested to know why you are choosing your array sizes to have 2^n-1 elements. It shouldn't matter if your packet space is big enough, but wouldn't it be nicer to use nicely rounded numbers? The PSX does tend to hang though if your packet space is too small. I'm at work at the moment, so I don't have my Yaroze here. I check it out at home tonight, and if I can figure out what's going wrong I'll get back. Herbs.