On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Francisco Jerez <curroje...@riseup.net> >>> wrote: >>>> Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> Generated by >>>>> >>>>> sed -i -e 's/\.bits\././g' *.c *.h *.cpp >>>>> sed -i -e 's/dw1\.//g' *.c *.h *.cpp >>>>> >>>>> and then reverting changes to comments in gen7_blorp.cpp and >>>>> brw_fs_generator.cpp. >>>>> >>>>> There wasn't any utility offered by forcing the programmer to list these >>>>> to access their fields. Removing them will reduce churn in future >>>>> commits. >>>>> >>>>> This is C11 (and gcc has apparently supported it for sometime >>>>> "compatibility with other compilers") >>>>> >>>>> See https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Unnamed-Fields.html >>>> >>>> This is also used from C++ source where anonymous structs are not part >>>> of any released standard. >>> >>> That is true. I have built this series with both clang-3.6 and >>> gcc-4.4.7. I don't think it's a problem. >> >> FWIW the min supported compiler by mesa is GCC 4.2. I believe this is >> the last pre-GPLv3 version, and used by the BSD's. >> >> -ilia > > That doesn't compile i965 anyway because we use boolean literals, and > also because Mesa uses cpuid.h. But, hacking around those things, I > don't see any evidence that gcc-4.2 isn't able to handle this code > anyway.
Sorry -- meant "binary literals" like 0b101. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
