On 12 November 2015 at 00:09, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Kenneth Graunke
> wrote:
>> Actually, your earlier statement:
>> "if file == BAD_FILE, no other fields mean anything."
>> suggests that we should change fs_reg() to simply set BAD_FILE, and
>> not bother initiali
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> Actually, your earlier statement:
> "if file == BAD_FILE, no other fields mean anything."
> suggests that we should change fs_reg() to simply set BAD_FILE, and
> not bother initializing the other fields. That would eliminate one
> of the r
On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 03:12:11 PM Matt Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Kenneth Graunke
> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 01:07:24 PM Matt Turner wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Kenneth Graunke
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Monday, November 02, 2015 04
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 01:07:24 PM Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Kenneth Graunke
>> wrote:
>> > On Monday, November 02, 2015 04:29:22 PM Matt Turner wrote:
>> >> The test (file == BAD_FILE) works on regi
On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 01:07:24 PM Matt Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Kenneth Graunke
> wrote:
> > On Monday, November 02, 2015 04:29:22 PM Matt Turner wrote:
> >> The test (file == BAD_FILE) works on registers for which the constructor
> >> has not run because BAD_FI
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On Monday, November 02, 2015 04:29:22 PM Matt Turner wrote:
>> The test (file == BAD_FILE) works on registers for which the constructor
>> has not run because BAD_FILE is zero. The next commit will move
>> BAD_FILE in the enum so that it'
On Monday, November 02, 2015 04:29:22 PM Matt Turner wrote:
> The test (file == BAD_FILE) works on registers for which the constructor
> has not run because BAD_FILE is zero. The next commit will move
> BAD_FILE in the enum so that it's no longer zero.
> ---
> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_nir
On 3 November 2015 at 18:02, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> On 3 November 2015 at 00:29, Matt Turner wrote:
>>> The test (file == BAD_FILE) works on registers for which the constructor
>>> has not run because BAD_FILE is zero. The next commit will mo
On 3 November 2015 at 18:02, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> On 3 November 2015 at 00:29, Matt Turner wrote:
>>> The test (file == BAD_FILE) works on registers for which the constructor
>>> has not run because BAD_FILE is zero. The next commit will mo
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 3 November 2015 at 00:29, Matt Turner wrote:
>> The test (file == BAD_FILE) works on registers for which the constructor
>> has not run because BAD_FILE is zero. The next commit will move
>> BAD_FILE in the enum so that it's no longer zero
On 3 November 2015 at 00:29, Matt Turner wrote:
> The test (file == BAD_FILE) works on registers for which the constructor
> has not run because BAD_FILE is zero. The next commit will move
> BAD_FILE in the enum so that it's no longer zero.
Doesn't the DECLARE_RALLOC_CXX_OPERATORS macro and fs_r
The test (file == BAD_FILE) works on registers for which the constructor
has not run because BAD_FILE is zero. The next commit will move
BAD_FILE in the enum so that it's no longer zero.
---
src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_nir.cpp | 10 +-
src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_visitor.cpp
12 matches
Mail list logo
