On 23 March 2013 11:02, Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> wrote:
> On 03/22/2013 05:42 PM, Eric Anholt wrote: > >> Paul Berry <stereotype...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> On 22 March 2013 12:32, Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net> wrote: >>> >>> Paul Berry <stereotype...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/**brw_vs.c >>>>> >>>> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/**brw_vs.c >>>> >>>>> index c8ca018..7e941dd 100644 >>>>> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/**brw_vs.c >>>>> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/**brw_vs.c >>>>> @@ -66,6 +66,12 @@ brw_compute_vue_map(struct brw_context *brw, struct >>>>> >>>> brw_vs_compile *c, >>>> >>>>> vue_map->slots_valid = slots_valid; >>>>> int i; >>>>> >>>>> + /* Make sure that the values we store in >>>>> >>>> vue_map->vert_result_to_slot and >>>> >>>>> + * vue_map->slot_to_vert_result won't overflow the signed chars >>>>> that >>>>> >>>> are >>>> >>>>> + * used to store them. >>>>> + */ >>>>> + STATIC_ASSERT(BRW_VARYING_**SLOT_MAX <= 128); >>>>> >>>> >>>> If the max varying slot was 128, that would be overflowed, right? >>>> >>>> >>> Actually, BRW_VARYING_SLOT_MAX is a misnomer--it's actually the max >>> varying >>> slot + 1. Want me to rename it BRW_NUM_VARYING_SLOT_MAX_PLUS_**1 or >>> something? >>> >> >> BRW_VARYING_SLOT_COUNT would be pretty good. >> > > I agree, BRW_VARYING_SLOT_COUNT sounds pretty good to me. > > Ok, I'll make a follow-on patch.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
