Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwer...@intel.com> writes:
> On 13/03/18 17:38, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> The compiler doesn't notice that the condition for num_layers to be
>> undefined already defined it above (as our assert checked in a debug
>> build).
>>
>> Cc: Jason Ekstrand <jason.ekstr...@intel.com>
>> ---
>> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_blorp.c | 1 +
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_blorp.c
>> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_blorp.c
>> index 1d586e5ef38d..2b8d913fa282 100644
>> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_blorp.c
>> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_blorp.c
>> @@ -1408,6 +1408,7 @@ brw_blorp_clear_depth_stencil(struct brw_context *brw,
>> assert(level == irb->mt_level);
>> assert(start_layer == irb->mt_layer);
>> assert(num_layers == fb->MaxNumLayers ? irb->layer_count : 1);
>> + num_layers = fb->MaxNumLayers ? irb->layer_count : 1;
>> } else {
>> level = irb->mt_level;
>> start_layer = irb->mt_layer;
>
> I guess if we're going to assign it in both block, better put it
> before/after the 2 blocks.
>
> What's your compiler? :)Just gcc 7.3
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
