On Saturday, April 2, 2016 5:09:27 PM PDT Rob Clark wrote:
> From: Rob Clark <robcl...@freedesktop.org>
>
> It's no extra overhead to do a _self_link() and it eliminates a class of
> potential problems.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robcl...@freedesktop.org>
> Dared-by: Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net>
> ---
> src/compiler/glsl/list.h | 15 +++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/compiler/glsl/list.h b/src/compiler/glsl/list.h
> index a1c4d82..77e1f67 100644
> --- a/src/compiler/glsl/list.h
> +++ b/src/compiler/glsl/list.h
> @@ -165,19 +165,18 @@ exec_node_get_prev(struct exec_node *n)
> }
>
> static inline void
> -exec_node_remove(struct exec_node *n)
> +exec_node_self_link(struct exec_node *n)
> {
> - n->next->prev = n->prev;
> - n->prev->next = n->next;
> - n->next = NULL;
> - n->prev = NULL;
> + n->next = n;
> + n->prev = n;
> }
>
> static inline void
> -exec_node_self_link(struct exec_node *n)
> +exec_node_remove(struct exec_node *n)
> {
> - n->next = n;
> - n->prev = n;
> + n->next->prev = n->prev;
> + n->prev->next = n->next;
> + exec_node_self_link(n);
> }
>
> static inline void
> I don't get it. The existing behavior of having unlinked nodes have NULL prev/next pointers seems perfectly reasonable to me. Removing a node multiple times seems like a mistake in the caller. --Ken
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
