On 06/07/2016 09:38 AM, Brian Paul wrote: > On 06/07/2016 10:09 AM, Mathias Fröhlich wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Tuesday, June 07, 2016 16:15:58 Nicolai Hähnle wrote: >> >> > Thanks for staying with this! >> >> > >> >> > I know it's bike-shedding, and I'm not sure what other people's >> opinions >> >> > are on this matter, but having the duplication of u_bit_scan and >> >> > _mesa_bit_scan feels a bit annoying to me... >> >> Well, yes, I can see that. But I feared that I open up a lot of >> additional >> >> discussion if I basically start to unify galliums u_math.h with mesa. >> >> So, I initially went with this least intrusive solution. >> >> I have seen that src/util/bitset.h already just pulls >> ..gallium../util/u_math.h >> >> directly. So given that the topic is about kind of bitsets I could >> imagine to pull >> >> the u_bit_scan functions though util/bitset.h? > > Let's not do that. util/bitset.h basically defines a bitvector datatype > and related operators. I don't think anything else should go in there. > > I'd probably opt for a new util/bitscan.h file which just has the > functions related to scanning over bits in bitfields, plus maybe the > ffs()-like functions.
I was going to suggest exactly this. > Whether you want to do that refactoring before or after your current > patch series doesn't really matter to me. I'd have a very mild preference for it to happen before, but it's a very mild preference. :) > -Brian > > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
