On 5 November 2015 at 22:06, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On 5 November 2015 at 19:15, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> From: Emil Velikov <emil.veli...@collabora.co.uk> >>>> >>>> This commits partially reverts "i965: Initialize registers' file to >>>> BAD_FILE." >>>> >>>> No longer needed as of commit "i965/fs: properly construct fs_reg" which >>>> removes the memset(...0...), and correctly sets BAD_FILE. >>> >>> I don't think the problem is that the constructors are doing the wrong >>> thing by memsetting the object. The problem is that the constructor >>> *isn't being called* :) >>> >>> fs_reg::init() indeed memsets, but it also sets file = BAD_FILE >>> (today, and after my series). >>> >>> So I think the code you're removing is still needed because the >>> problem of not calling the constructors remain. >>> >>> Maybe I've misunderstood something. >> Afaict if one declares an array, the default ctor will be called for >> each instance in the list. >> >> Thus the BAD_FILE will be set. On the other hand - currently we zero >> the whole lot (thanks to memset(this->outputs, 0...). Which might be >> the prime suspect of the issue here. > > Ah, yes. I believe you're right. > > In that case, the memset is just totally unnecessary, isn't it? Maybe > I should just remove it in my patch directly? After having a second look - yes. Removing the memset (and dropping the BAD_FILE assignment) should work out nicely. That is obviously only for the case in fs_visitor::init(). The rest will still need the BAD_FILE treatment.
-Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
