On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote:
> ---
>  src/intel/blorp/blorp_clear.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/intel/blorp/blorp_clear.c b/src/intel/blorp/blorp_clear.c
> index 0feebef..e8b1e32 100644
> --- a/src/intel/blorp/blorp_clear.c
> +++ b/src/intel/blorp/blorp_clear.c
> @@ -442,14 +442,24 @@ blorp_clear(struct blorp_batch *batch,
>        if (batch->blorp->isl_dev->info->gen == 4 &&
>            (params.dst.surf.usage & ISL_SURF_USAGE_CUBE_BIT)) {
>           blorp_surf_convert_to_single_slice(batch->blorp->isl_dev, 
> &params.dst);
> +      }
> +
> +      if (isl_format_is_compressed(params.dst.surf.format)) {
> +         blorp_surf_convert_to_uncompressed(batch->blorp->isl_dev, 
> &params.dst,
> +                                            NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL);
> +                                            //&dst_x, &dst_y, &dst_w, 
> &dst_h);

Did you mean to leave this as is?

The previous patch (commit f395d0abc) caused a Coverity warning
because you began checking if x and y are non-NULL in one place after
dereferencing them under different conditions earlier. This code being
commented out makes me wonder what was really intended.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

Reply via email to