On 3 November 2015 at 18:02, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > Yay ralloc :)
> 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... Did not mean it as "drop everything and fix that bug", but more of "add a note about this strange behaviour". Come to think of it I'm not sure which is the better place for it :'( -Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
