On 5/8/07, Christoph Brill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I reviewed the cleanup done by Olliver McFadden and had the following
> questions:
>
> -int r300_get_num_verts(r300ContextPtr rmesa, int num_verts, int prim)
> +static int r300NumVerts(r300ContextPtr rmesa, int num_verts, int prim)
>
> Is it necessary/usefull that the function is static?
I think it's better to have static function, i am thinking of symbol export and
other things like that.
>
> -/* Immediate implementation has been removed from CVS. */
> -
> -/* vertex buffer implementation */
> -
> -static void inline fire_EB(r300ContextPtr rmesa, unsigned long addr
> +static void inline r300FireEB(r300ContextPtr rmesa, unsigned long addr
>
> Why move all the comments to the head of the file. IMO the method should
> have a doxygen comment that states it is the vertex buffer
> implementation of fire_EB, right?
>
>
> - if (num_verts > 65535) { /* not implemented yet */
> + if (num_verts > 65535) {
>
> Comments like this should be kept. Otherwise it looks like a hardware
> limitation while the limitation can be worked around or the limitation
> does not exist.
>
>
> Last but not least is
> r300_foo_bar
> preferred or
> r300FooBar
> Which is the one mesa uses?
We can use the one we like, i prefer r300_foo_bar over r300FooBar which
i dislike but the choice is up to the first person who do big cleanup :) and
we do not have to conform to mesa coding style for driver but use the one
we like the more.
best,
Jerome Glisse
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
--
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
