I think pretty much everyone agrees that having more than a single bool as a
function argument is bordering on a bad idea. What sucks about the current
code is in several instances it's necessary to propagate these boolean
selections down to lower layers of the code. This requires plumbing (mechani
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:07:36PM -0700, Chad Versace wrote:
> On Fri 29 May 2015, Pohjolainen, Topi wrote:
> > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:32:53AM +0300, Pohjolainen, Topi wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:21:29AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > > I think pretty much everyone agrees that ha
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Chad Versace wrote:
> On Fri 29 May 2015, Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Ben Widawsky
>> > @@ -286,7 +284,7 @@ intel_miptree_create_layout(struct brw_context *brw,
>> > mt->logical_height0 = height0;
>> > mt->logical_depth0 = depth
On Fri 29 May 2015, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On Friday, May 29, 2015 12:33:10 PM Chad Versace wrote:
> > On Fri 29 May 2015, Matt Turner wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Ben Widawsky
> > > > @@ -286,7 +284,7 @@ intel_miptree_create_layout(struct brw_context *brw,
> > > > mt->logic
On Friday, May 29, 2015 12:33:10 PM Chad Versace wrote:
> On Fri 29 May 2015, Matt Turner wrote:
> > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Ben Widawsky
> > > @@ -286,7 +284,7 @@ intel_miptree_create_layout(struct brw_context *brw,
> > > mt->logical_height0 = height0;
> > > mt->logical_depth0 =
On Fri 29 May 2015, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Ben Widawsky
> > @@ -286,7 +284,7 @@ intel_miptree_create_layout(struct brw_context *brw,
> > mt->logical_height0 = height0;
> > mt->logical_depth0 = depth0;
> > mt->fast_clear_state = INTEL_FAST_CLEAR_STATE_NO_M
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Ben Widawsky
wrote:
> I think pretty much everyone agrees that having more than a single bool as a
> function argument is bordering on a bad idea. What sucks about the current
> code is in several instances it's necessary to propagate these boolean
> selections do
On Fri 29 May 2015, Pohjolainen, Topi wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:32:53AM +0300, Pohjolainen, Topi wrote:
> > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:21:29AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > I think pretty much everyone agrees that having more than a single bool
> > > as a
> > > function argument is bo
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:32:53AM +0300, Pohjolainen, Topi wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:21:29AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > I think pretty much everyone agrees that having more than a single bool as a
> > function argument is bordering on a bad idea. What sucks about the current
> > code
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:21:29AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> I think pretty much everyone agrees that having more than a single bool as a
> function argument is bordering on a bad idea. What sucks about the current
> code is in several instances it's necessary to propagate these boolean
> select
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Ben Widawsky
wrote:
> I think pretty much everyone agrees that having more than a single bool as a
> function argument is bordering on a bad idea. What sucks about the current
> code is in several instances it's necessary to propagate these boolean
> selections do
I think pretty much everyone agrees that having more than a single bool as a
function argument is bordering on a bad idea. What sucks about the current
code is in several instances it's necessary to propagate these boolean
selections down to lower layers of the code. This requires plumbing (mechani
12 matches
Mail list logo
