On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 09:08 -0700, Joakim Sindholt wrote: > Hi. > I just had a look at debug options in u_debug, specifically enumerated > options in debug_get_flags_option(). It stands out that struct > debug_named_value doesn't have a description field, as is used in r300g. > I'm guessing that for this reason, r300g has it's own system, and I'm > reluctant to use it as well. > It can be quite useful to have a description available; especially when > you have options named "fp", "vp", "cs", "rs", "fb", etc. that aren't > exactly descriptive in their own right (at least for people unfamiliar > with the driver). > > Would it be acceptable to add a description field to debug_named_value?
I think it might be useful. Just make sure NULL is valid description and ensure that the existing code is doesn't break or is fixed. E.g., add a new DEBUG_NAMED_VALUE_WITH_DESCRIPTION macro and keep DEBUG_NAMED_VALUE with the same number of args. Jose _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
