Am 27.03.2018 um 20:40 schrieb Emil Velikov:
> On 27 March 2018 at 00:08, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
>> Am 27.03.2018 um 00:44 schrieb Rob Clark:
>>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:38 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Roland Scheidegger
wrote:
> Am 26.03.2018 um 23:0
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 2:40 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 27 March 2018 at 00:08, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
>> Am 27.03.2018 um 00:44 schrieb Rob Clark:
>>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:38 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Roland Scheidegger
wrote:
> Am 26.03.201
On 27 March 2018 at 00:08, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
> Am 27.03.2018 um 00:44 schrieb Rob Clark:
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:38 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Roland Scheidegger
>>> wrote:
Am 26.03.2018 um 23:01 schrieb Rob Clark:
> correct me if I'm wrong,
Am 27.03.2018 um 00:44 schrieb Rob Clark:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:38 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Roland Scheidegger
>> wrote:
>>> Am 26.03.2018 um 23:01 schrieb Rob Clark:
correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how you could do the ## stuff
to constru
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:38 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Roland Scheidegger
> wrote:
>> Am 26.03.2018 um 23:01 schrieb Rob Clark:
>>> correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how you could do the ## stuff
>>> to construct the built-in type name with templates. So I t
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
> Am 26.03.2018 um 23:01 schrieb Rob Clark:
>> correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how you could do the ## stuff
>> to construct the built-in type name with templates. So I think the
>> options are tons of copy/pasta code (ie. what w
On 03/26/2018 02:01 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how you could do the ## stuff
> to construct the built-in type name with templates. So I think the
> options are tons of copy/pasta code (ie. what we had before) or
> macros.
That is true... I don't know why my ey
Am 26.03.2018 um 23:01 schrieb Rob Clark:
> correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how you could do the ## stuff
> to construct the built-in type name with templates. So I think the
> options are tons of copy/pasta code (ie. what we had before) or
> macros.
>
> I agree that could just construct
correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how you could do the ## stuff
to construct the built-in type name with templates. So I think the
options are tons of copy/pasta code (ie. what we had before) or
macros.
I agree that could just construct the whole method with the macro.. I
like that better
On 03/26/2018 01:33 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
> As much as I'm not a fan of C++ templates, I don't see how this
> preprocessor macro reinvention of that mechanism is an improvement.
At least if we're going to do this, can we put the whole body of the
function in the macro, as is done elsewhere?
> O
As much as I'm not a fan of C++ templates, I don't see how this
preprocessor macro reinvention of that mechanism is an improvement.
On 03/26/2018 09:45 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> From: Emil Velikov
>
> Update the macro to have the explic return. Using the current GCC
> specific macro breaks other
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> From: Emil Velikov
>
> Update the macro to have the explic return. Using the current GCC
> specific macro breaks other compilers such as the Intel one or MSVC.
>
> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105740
> Fixes: f407edf
From: Emil Velikov
Update the macro to have the explic return. Using the current GCC
specific macro breaks other compilers such as the Intel one or MSVC.
Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105740
Fixes: f407edf3407396379e16b0be74b8d3b85d2ad7f0
Cc: Rob Clark
Cc: Timothy Arcer
13 matches
Mail list logo
