On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Pohjolainen, Topi <topi.pohjolai...@intel.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:31:32AM -0700, Matt Turner wrote: >> --- >> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.h | 1 + >> 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp >> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp >> index b2eac6c..28d369a 100644 >> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp >> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp >> @@ -71,6 +71,36 @@ fs_inst::fs_inst() >> init(); >> } >> >> +fs_inst::fs_inst(const fs_inst *that) > > Is there a particular reason why you chose to introduce this as a conversion > constructor instead of as a proper copy? I'm just afraid that it allows the > compiler to accept, for example, the following (which is probably not what the > author wanted):
No, in fact I really dislike this code. Is it safe to just memcpy the object in a copy constructor? Having to maintain the list of fields is awful. I'm happy to receive suggestions. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
