On 05/07/2014 01:33 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
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.
Does that count as a R-b for the original patch?
-Brian
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
