On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote: > How about we do things slightly differently and check "(__node)->field.next > != NULL" just like we do on regular versions. Since the check happens > between the increment step and running the user's code, __node is valid for > every invocation of the checking condition. Would that make you feel better > about it?
Yeah, that seems a lot clearer. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
