Brian, On Monday, 8 August 2016 08:27:40 CEST Brian Paul wrote: > On 08/06/2016 12:42 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > From: Mathias Fröhlich <[email protected]> > > > > We need this for 'inline'. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mathias Fröhlich <[email protected]> > > --- > > src/gallium/auxiliary/util/u_bitcast.h | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/src/gallium/auxiliary/util/u_bitcast.h > > b/src/gallium/auxiliary/util/ u_bitcast.h > > index b1f9938..e8fb0fe 100644 > > --- a/src/gallium/auxiliary/util/u_bitcast.h > > +++ b/src/gallium/auxiliary/util/u_bitcast.h > > @@ -30,6 +30,8 @@ > > > > #include <string.h> > > > > +#include "c99_compat.h" > > + > > #ifdef __cplusplus > > extern "C" { > > #endif > > > > Shouldn't this get squashed into patch 1?
No, i don't think so. Patch 1 is about src/util/bitscan.h. The series did so far *not* touch src/gallium/auxiliary/util/u_bitcast.h at all. I just put that there since you seem to have stepped onto that. And it appeared to me that I kindly asked for testing that seems to be hold back by that unrelated compile failure. And if in the end your compile is fixed with my pending push both will be happy then. Right? Regards Mathias
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
