On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> wrote: >> From: Jason Ekstrand <jason.ekstr...@intel.com> >> >> __next and __prev are pointers to the structure containing the exec_node >> link, not the embedded exec_node. NULL checks would fail unless the >> embedded exec_node happened to be at offset 0 in the parent struct. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason.ekstr...@intel.com> >> Reviewed-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> >> --- >> src/glsl/list.h | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/src/glsl/list.h b/src/glsl/list.h >> index ddb98f7..680e963 100644 >> --- a/src/glsl/list.h >> +++ b/src/glsl/list.h >> @@ -684,7 +684,7 @@ inline void exec_node::insert_before(exec_list *before) >> exec_node_data(__type, (__list)->head, __field), \ >> * __next = \ >> exec_node_data(__type, (__node)->__field.next, __field); \ >> - __next != NULL; \ >> + &__next->__field != NULL; \ > > I'm not understanding now the address of __next->__field can ever be NULL. > > __next is something with an embedded struct exec_node, so don't we > want "__next->__field != NULL" without the address-of operator?
Sorry, that should have been "exec_node_is_tail_sentinel(&__next->__field)" _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev