On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Chad Versace <[email protected]> wrote: >>> + *x = unpack_1x8((uint8_t) (u & 0xff)); >>> + *y = unpack_1x8((uint8_t) (u >> 8)); >>> + *z = unpack_1x8((uint8_t) (u >> 16)); >>> + *w = unpack_1x8((uint8_t) (u >> 24)); >>> +} >> >> The bitmask (u & 0xff) confused me for a few moments, made me say "Why does >> Matt >> need a bitmask there?". But, then I realized that I did the same for >> unpack_2x16, >> and you likely just copied my pattern. Oh well. I'd prefer that unpack_2x16 >> and unpack_4x8 follow a similar visual pattern rather than clean that up now, >> so I'm ok with that funny looking bitmask staying in this patch.
Hah, I wondered the same thing about your patch. :) gcc, and I assume any other compiler we could possible care about, knows the & 0xff is a nop. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
