On 09/20/2013 09:51 PM, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> All member variables of vec4_live_variables are already being
> initialized from its constructor, it's not necessary to use rzalloc to
> allocate its memory, and doing so makes it more likely that we will
> start relying on the allocator to zero out all memory if the class is
> ever extended with new member variables.
>
> That's bad because it ties objects to some specific allocation scheme,
> and gives unpredictable results when an object is created with a
> different allocator -- Stack allocation, array allocation, or
> aggregation inside a different object are some of the useful
> possibilities that come to my mind.
> ---
> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_live_variables.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_live_variables.h
> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_live_variables.h
> index b8ab95a..296468a 100644
> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_live_variables.h
> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_live_variables.h
> @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ struct block_data {
>
> class vec4_live_variables {
> public:
> - DECLARE_RZALLOC_CXX_OPERATORS(vec4_live_variables)
> + DECLARE_RALLOC_CXX_OPERATORS(vec4_live_variables)
>
> vec4_live_variables(vec4_visitor *v, cfg_t *cfg);
> ~vec4_live_variables();
>
Patches 2 and 6-11 are:
Reviewed-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org>
I'm hoping to see a respin of 1 and 3-5. (Well, assuming you
incorporate my suggestion to 5, you can just add my R-b to that and push
it.)
--Ken
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
