Path: chuka.playstation.co.uk!scea!wal From: wal@blarg.net (wayne a. lee) Newsgroups: scee.yaroze.beginners Subject: Re: GpuPacketArea query. Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 02:59:10 -0700 Organization: SCEA News Server Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <35557807.6E248247@chowfam.demon.co.uk> <3558DF85.7C89DA42@ndirect.co.uk> <3559D87E.D5C1EBD1@chowfam.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: dnai-207-181-237-240.dialup.dnai.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.4.0 In article <3559D87E.D5C1EBD1@chowfam.demon.co.uk>, 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. Hmmm. Since PACKET is char-sized, do you think the compiler is aligning the second row on an odd-byte boundary, which might mess up GsSetWorkBase()? It doesn't seem likely to me, but if you want to check, look at &GpuPktArea[1][0] in the debugger and see what you get. I don't even know if passing an odd address to GsSetWorkBase() is OK or not. -- wayne a. lee