On 27 August 2013 16:51, Damien Lespiau <damien.lesp...@intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:02:22AM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote: > > On 07/24/2013 09:33 AM, Paul Berry wrote: > > >Two callers of brw_search_cache() weren't initializing that function's > > >inout_offset parameter: brw_blorp_const_color_params::get_wm_prog() > > >and brw_blorp_const_color_params::get_wm_prog(). > > > > > >That's a benign problem, since the only effect of not initializing > > >inout_offset prior to calling brw_search_cache() is that the bit > > >corresponding to cache_id in brw->state.dirty.cache may not be set > > >reliably. This is ok, since the cache_id's used by > > >brw_blorp_const_color_params::get_wm_prog() and > > >brw_blorp_blit_params::get_wm_prog() (BRW_BLORP_CONST_COLOR_PROG and > > >BRW_BLORP_BLIT_PROG, respectively) correspond to dirty bits that are > > >not used. > > > > > >However, failing to initialize this parameter causes valgrind to > > >complain. So let's go ahead and fix it to reduce valgrind noise. > > > > > >Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=66779 > > Can we have this commit in the 9.2 branch? It was added in the release > blocker bug but never cherry-picked for 9.2. > > Thanks! > > -- > Damien > Is there a reason for wanting this cherry-picked to 9.2 other than to follow procedure? As the commit message notes it's a benign problem--all it does is cause false positives from valgrind. I'd rather not mess with 9.2 if there's not going to be any benefit to users.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
