On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 10:10:39 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 17:06:31 -0700, Chad Versace wrote:
> > Before this commit, if a client were to request a stencil or hiz buffer,
> > then
> > I830DRI2CreateBuffer() allocated and returned an X-tiled buffer by
> > accident. (DRI2BufferS
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 17:06:31 -0700, Chad Versace wrote:
> Before this commit, if a client were to request a stencil or hiz buffer, then
> I830DRI2CreateBuffer() allocated and returned an X-tiled buffer by
> accident. (DRI2BufferStencil and DRI2BufferHiz were unintentionally caught
> by the default
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 17:06:31 -0700, Chad Versace wrote:
> Before this commit, if a client were to request a stencil or hiz buffer, then
> I830DRI2CreateBuffer() allocated and returned an X-tiled buffer by
> accident. (DRI2BufferStencil and DRI2BufferHiz were unintentionally caught
> by the default
On 06/04/2011 05:06 PM, Chad Versace wrote:
Before this commit, if a client were to request a stencil or hiz buffer, then
I830DRI2CreateBuffer() allocated and returned an X-tiled buffer by
accident. (DRI2BufferStencil and DRI2BufferHiz were unintentionally caught
by the default case of a switch s
Before this commit, if a client were to request a stencil or hiz buffer, then
I830DRI2CreateBuffer() allocated and returned an X-tiled buffer by
accident. (DRI2BufferStencil and DRI2BufferHiz were unintentionally caught
by the default case of a switch statement.)
Now, I830DRI2CreateBuffer() correc
