On 11/01/2017 06:33 PM, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
Do either of you mind if I cc the first one to stable? It does fix a potential memory leak in the case where compilation fails.
IMO CC stable would be fine for that one.
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Tapani Pälli <tapani.pa...@intel.com <mailto:tapani.pa...@intel.com>> wrote:series Reviewed-by: Tapani Pälli <tapani.pa...@intel.com <mailto:tapani.pa...@intel.com>> On 11/01/2017 06:00 PM, Jason Ekstrand wrote: It doesn't actually matter since the only user of push constants, i965, ralloc_steals it back to NULL but it's more consistent and probably fixes memory leaks in some error cases. --- src/intel/compiler/brw_fs.cpp | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/src/intel/compiler/brw_fs.cpp b/src/intel/compiler/brw_fs.cpp index e546792..21ff030 100644 --- a/src/intel/compiler/brw_fs.cpp +++ b/src/intel/compiler/brw_fs.cpp @@ -2095,7 +2095,7 @@ fs_visitor::assign_constant_locations() stage_prog_data->param = ralloc_array(mem_ctx, uint32_t, num_push_constants); if (num_pull_constants > 0) { stage_prog_data->nr_pull_params = num_pull_constants; - stage_prog_data->pull_param = ralloc_array(NULL, uint32_t, + stage_prog_data->pull_param = ralloc_array(mem_ctx, uint32_t,num_pull_constants);}
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
