Am 07.10.2016 um 19:08 schrieb Rob Clark:
> so, btw, the question is whether to push this patch, or the one that
> initializes ->next to NULL in the drivers, or possibly both for good
> measure.
Yes, why not do both. It makes it explicit that this magic next pointer
isn't going to do anything with
On 07.10.2016 19:08, Rob Clark wrote:
so, btw, the question is whether to push this patch, or the one that
initializes ->next to NULL in the drivers, or possibly both for good
measure.
memset'ing the templ is probably a sane future-proofing thing to do regardless.
I like my bike-shed in the ca
so, btw, the question is whether to push this patch, or the one that
initializes ->next to NULL in the drivers, or possibly both for good
measure.
memset'ing the templ is probably a sane future-proofing thing to do regardless.
BR,
-R
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> Mostly te
Mostly test code, plus one spot I noticed in r600.
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark
---
src/gallium/drivers/radeon/r600_texture.c | 1 +
src/gallium/tests/graw/clear.c| 1 +
src/gallium/tests/graw/fs-test.c | 2 ++
src/gallium/tests/graw/graw_util.h| 2 ++
src/gallium/tests/
