On 05.05.2014 22:39, Brian Paul wrote: > On 05/03/2014 07:43 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote: >> On 03.05.2014 22:29, Brian Paul wrote: >>> The enum numbers were just cruft. >> >> I disagree. Nothing's changed about the reason I added them in the first >> place: When a driver is queried for a cap it doesn't know about, it >> prints an error message containing only the numeric value of the cap. >> These explicit numbers make it easy to find out which cap the driver is >> complaining about. > > Hi Michel, > > In the past when someone added a new enum and softpipe, llvmpipe or svga > complained at runtime about an unhandled num, it's been pretty easy to > spot the new one and fix it. > > Actually, what you have in the radeon/si drivers is better: switch > statements w/out default cases. So the compiler will warn about the > missing enum case by name (not number). That's a more effective way of > catching unhandled enums earlier. I should change softpipe, llvmpipe > and svga to do the same. > > How does that sound? Are there other drivers you're concerned about?
Not really, sounds good to me then. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
