----- Original Message ----- > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 2:33 AM, Jose Fonseca <jfons...@vmware.com> > wrote: > > Brian, > > > > This is probably right but a tad verbose, and error prone. > > > > I'm not sure what's the best way to simplify this though. It's not > > possible to canonize the comparisons because there are missing > > combinations. > > > > But I think that at least using ternary operators would make the > > code more compact and help ensuring thar cases don't follow > > through the cracks. For example: > > > > case MESA_FORMAT_RGBA8888: > > > > if (format == GL_RGBA && > > type == (!swapBytes ? GL_UNSIGNED_INT_8_8_8_8 : > > GL_UNSIGNED_INT_8_8_8_8_REV)) > > return GL_TRUE; > > > > if (format == GL_ABGR_EXT && > > type == (!swapBytes ? GL_UNSIGNED_INT_8_8_8_8_REV : > > GL_UNSIGNED_INT_8_8_8_8)) > > return GL_TRUE; > > > > if (format == (!littleEndian ? GL_RGBA : GL_ABGR_EXT) && > > type == GL_UNSIGNED_BYTE) > > return GL_TRUE; > > Honestly, I find my approach easier to read and understand than that. > > I don't think there's an ideal way to express all the various > combinations. I opted for simple (if verbose) logic over more > sophisticated logic (which can be error-prone too).
Fair enough. Jose _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
