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, > ¶ms.dst); > + } > + > + if (isl_format_is_compressed(params.dst.surf.format)) { > + blorp_surf_convert_to_uncompressed(batch->blorp->isl_dev, > ¶ms.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