On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Christian König <deathsim...@vodafone.de> wrote: > On 15.11.2012 17:00, alexdeuc...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> From: Alex Deucher <alexander.deuc...@amd.com> >> >> Rather than disabling the depth buffer. > > I would still prefer to use *_INVALID as the invalid function return value > here. > > Just imagine a release build with an undetected bug, writing *_INVALID would > still result in well defined hw behavior, while ~0 usually maps to something > reserved. Of course additionally asserting on it still makes allot of sense.
How about #define INVALID_FORMAT ~0? Using the hardware "INVALID" format means the buffer binding is *disabled*, not *invalid*, so there should be a distinction between disabled buffers (unbound) and invalid ones (bound with an unsupported format, we should never happen). If you're concerned about a release build, I guess we can just abort() if the format translation fails and there is no way to report the failure to the state tracker. I just think it's a serious bug and if it happens, we shouldn't hide it. Marek _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev