On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3 November 2015 at 00:29, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The test (file == BAD_FILE) works on registers for which the constructor >> has not run because BAD_FILE is zero. The next commit will move >> BAD_FILE in the enum so that it's no longer zero. > > Doesn't the DECLARE_RALLOC_CXX_OPERATORS macro and fs_reg::fs_reg() > kick in ? If not things look quite fragile and perhaps we should wire > them up.
I don't know. I'm certainly in favor of actually constructing fs_regs... Ken was pretty horrified when I told him that we were just ralloc_arrary()ing fs_regs without calling the constructor, but he's partly to blame (commit commit 6928bea :) What's worse, ralloc_array() isn't even supposed to zero-initialize things. That's just an accident that's kind of hard to fix now. I could try to clean that stuff up, but again, this series is already cleaning plenty of stuff. If I stopped to fix every bug I saw... _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
