On 08.05.2014 00:02, Brian Paul wrote: > 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?
Yes, Reviewed-by: Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> Thanks Brian. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev