Iago Toral <ito...@igalia.com> writes:
> On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 13:27 +0300, Francisco Jerez wrote:
>> Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> writes:
>>
>> > On Thursday, October 02, 2014 11:28:35 AM Ian Romanick wrote:
>> >> Since this is Curro's code, I'm CC'ing me.
>> >>
>> >> On 10/01/2014 03:12 AM, Iago Toral Quiroga wrote:
>> >> > in_var calls the ir_variable constructor, which dups the variable name.
>> >> > ---
>> >> > src/glsl/builtin_functions.cpp | 8 +++++---
>> >> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> >> >
>> >> > diff --git a/src/glsl/builtin_functions.cpp
>> >> > b/src/glsl/builtin_functions.cpp
>> >> > index 5a024cb..7d61fcc 100644
>> >> > --- a/src/glsl/builtin_functions.cpp
>> >> > +++ b/src/glsl/builtin_functions.cpp
>> >> > @@ -4465,9 +4465,11 @@ builtin_builder::_image_prototype(const
>> >> > glsl_type *image_type,
>> >> > sig->parameters.push_tail(in_var(glsl_type::int_type, "sample"));
>> >> >
>> >> > /* Data arguments. */
>> >> > - for (unsigned i = 0; i < num_arguments; ++i)
>> >> > - sig->parameters.push_tail(in_var(data_type,
>> >> > - ralloc_asprintf(NULL, "arg%d",
>> >> > i)));
>> >> > + for (unsigned i = 0; i < num_arguments; ++i) {
>> >> > + char *arg_name = ralloc_asprintf(NULL, "arg%d", i);
>> >> > + sig->parameters.push_tail(in_var(data_type, arg_name));
>> >> > + ralloc_free(arg_name);
>> >> > + }
>> >>
>> >> Using a NULL memory context is generally bad... precisely because it
>> >> often leads to memory leaks.
>> >>
>> >> There are a couple ways to fix this. Since all of the image functions
>> >> have a limited number of parameters, we could either:
>> >>
>> >> - Have a fixed size buffer that we snprintf to.
>> >>
>> >> - Have a table of all the parameter names.
>> >>
>> >> - Since this is the function prototype, I don't think we need names for
>> >> the parameters at all. Just pass NULL?
>> >
>> > Does anything even use the names? I don't think anything does...at which
>> > point, why not just call them all "arg" and be done with it?
>> >
>>
>> Aren't the names useful for debugging and error reporting? But sure,
>> you're right that "arg1" isn't a lot more meaningful than "arg".
>
> Francisco: so I understand that you would be okay with just passing
> "arg" for all these parameters as Kenneth suggested? I can send the
> patch for this if we agree to do this.
>*Shrug*, if we just call them all "arg", isn't it going to be a little confusing when (if) we start emitting errors that reference the parameter names? You patch is fine as-is IMHO. > Iago
pgpXSnbmfEaRH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
