On Wed 31 May 2017, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On May 31, 2017 9:32:23 PM Ian Romanick wrote:
>
> > Having the unsupported format value not be zero isn't very safe. The
> > C99 rules say that any field missing an initializer is implicitly
> > initialized to zero. If a
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On May 31, 2017 9:32:23 PM Ian Romanick wrote:
>
>> Having the unsupported format value not be zero isn't very safe. The
>> C99 rules say that any field missing an initializer is implicitly
>>
On May 31, 2017 9:32:23 PM Ian Romanick wrote:
Having the unsupported format value not be zero isn't very safe. The
C99 rules say that any field missing an initializer is implicitly
initialized to zero. If a MESA_FORMAT_ value is added but is not added
to the array
Having the unsupported format value not be zero isn't very safe. The
C99 rules say that any field missing an initializer is implicitly
initialized to zero. If a MESA_FORMAT_ value is added but is not added
to the array initializer, we'll have this same problem... but in a way
that is much harder
2-4 are also
Reviewed-by: Jason Ekstrand
On May 31, 2017 4:44:11 PM Chad Versace wrote:
When given an *unsupported* mesa_format,
brw_isl_format_for_mesa_format() returned 0, a *valid* isl_format,
ISL_FORMAT_R32G32B32A32_FLOAT. The problem is that
When given an *unsupported* mesa_format,
brw_isl_format_for_mesa_format() returned 0, a *valid* isl_format,
ISL_FORMAT_R32G32B32A32_FLOAT. The problem is that
brw_isl_format_for_mesa_format's inner table used 0 instead of
ISL_FORMAT_UNSUPPORTED to indicate unsupported mesa formats.
Some callers