Video: refactor rgb to not change the video structs #216
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
WinterMute
reviewed
May 31, 2025
libogc/video.c
Outdated
| currTiming = __gettiming(vimode); | ||
| currTvMode = HorVer.tv; | ||
| currRgb = HorVer.rgb; | ||
| currRgb = GX_FALSE; |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
currRgb can be made a standard bool and just use false here
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
then __ViGetRgbMode can be refactored to return bool & use normal true/false in that function. GX_TRUE/GX_FALSE are there because somewhere in the GX code there are booleans that need to be 32bit
DacoTaco
force-pushed
the
refactor/videoStruct
branch
from
1298204 to
5aecf9a
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
some applications were depended on the structure of the video modes. to prevent breaking compatibility the rgb flag was removed and move to a function that returns the value
@shizmob : if you could verify this, that'd be great too ^^;