On Wednesday, 2018-07-25 14:00:29 -0700, Dylan Baker wrote: > Quoting Eric Engestrom (2018-07-25 11:45:56) > > CovID: 1438132 > > Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <eric.engest...@intel.com> > > --- > > src/intel/vulkan/anv_device.c | 4 +++- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/src/intel/vulkan/anv_device.c b/src/intel/vulkan/anv_device.c > > index 04fd6a829ed60081abc4..3664f80c24dc34955196 100644 > > --- a/src/intel/vulkan/anv_device.c > > +++ b/src/intel/vulkan/anv_device.c > > @@ -1832,11 +1832,13 @@ void anv_DestroyDevice( > > const VkAllocationCallbacks* pAllocator) > > { > > ANV_FROM_HANDLE(anv_device, device, _device); > > - struct anv_physical_device *physical_device = > > &device->instance->physicalDevice; > > + struct anv_physical_device *physical_device; > > Is there a particular reason to create the pointer her but assign it after the > null check rather than just move the null check between the ANV_FROM_HANDLE > and > the anv_pysical_device?
Just the habit of always putting variable declarations before any logic ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I thought that was considered best-practice; has that changed? > > > > > if (!device) > > return; > > > > + physical_device = &device->instance->physicalDevice; > > + > > anv_device_finish_blorp(device); > > > > anv_pipeline_cache_finish(&device->default_pipeline_cache); > > -- > > Cheers, > > Eric > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mesa-dev mailing list > > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev