On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Jan Vesely <jan.ves...@rutgers.edu> wrote: > On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 12:58 -0800, Matt Turner wrote: >> I'm curious what the motivation for removing variably-sized arrays is, >> but if I accept that that's a good thing to do then the first patch >> makes sense, but I don't understand this one. >> >> How is a variably-size array different from using alloca()? > > variable size arrays are a c99 feature not supported by msvc (that's why > there is a warning). I don't know which parts actually do need to build > using msvc, but it seemed like a good idea to reduce warning output (and > improve consistency with code that needs to build using msvc). > > In the first patch I used alloca+free, because it looked nicer than > doing size arithmetic. The other cases allocate byte arrays, and the > only difference is that alloca (_alloca) is supported by msvc.
Okay, then this patch doesn't do anything useful, since these tests shouldn't be built with MSVC. dma_bufs are a Linux thing. _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list Piglit@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
