Fair enough.
Although from my tests with x86-64 GCC 6.3 (Fedora 25), it did produce a
slightly smaller binary with this patch.
With that said, I only used whatever the default optimization flags are,
and I didn't do a diff on a disasm to see what actually changed.
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Nicolai Hähnle <nhaeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23.07.2017 18:24, Mystro256 wrote:
> > ---
> > src/amd/addrlib/core/addrobject.cpp | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/amd/addrlib/core/addrobject.cpp b/src/amd/addrlib/core/
> addrobject.cpp
> > index dcdb1bf..ee2d9a9 100644
> > --- a/src/amd/addrlib/core/addrobject.cpp
> > +++ b/src/amd/addrlib/core/addrobject.cpp
> > @@ -61,9 +61,9 @@ Object::Object()
> > * Constructor for the Object class.
> > ************************************************************
> ****************************************
> > */
> > -Object::Object(const Client* pClient)
> > +Object::Object(const Client* pClient):
> > + m_client (*pClient)
> > {
> > - m_client = *pClient;
> > }
>
> Thanks, but this is really a matter of taste and coding style. It should
> make no difference for the generated code, and I believe addrlib
> generally prefers not to use the initializer list, so NAK on this patch.
>
> Cheers,
> Nicolai
>
>
> >
> > /**
> >
>
>
> --
> Lerne, wie die Welt wirklich ist,
> Aber vergiss niemals, wie sie sein sollte.
>
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
