It's impossible for them to be built on MSVC, they're guarded in cmake by LBIDRM_FOUND
On Friday, December 12, 2014 01:37:09 PM Matt Turner wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Jan Vesely <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 12:58 -0800, Matt Turner wrote: > >> I'm curious what the motivation for removing variably-sized arrays is, > >> but if I accept that that's a good thing to do then the first patch > >> makes sense, but I don't understand this one. > >> > >> How is a variably-size array different from using alloca()? > > > > variable size arrays are a c99 feature not supported by msvc (that's why > > there is a warning). I don't know which parts actually do need to build > > using msvc, but it seemed like a good idea to reduce warning output (and > > improve consistency with code that needs to build using msvc). > > > > In the first patch I used alloca+free, because it looked nicer than > > doing size arithmetic. The other cases allocate byte arrays, and the > > only difference is that alloca (_alloca) is supported by msvc. > > Okay, then this patch doesn't do anything useful, since these tests > shouldn't be built with MSVC. dma_bufs are a Linux thing. > _______________________________________________ > Piglit mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
