On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Jan Vesely <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 13:37 -0800, 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. > > yes, I understand that, the point was not to build them using msvc. > > the patch usefulness is in enabling switch Wvla to error instead of > warning. other than that, it just reduces warning output.
Ah, I see. Okay. For my own curiosity, does this actually change the compiled code? _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
