So I understand we agree on the change, just waiting for non-RFC version?
-Tomasz
On 2018-09-24 11:34, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
Ping!
Any comments here?
Main goal was to allow GEM_WARN_ON as a statement, plus also protect
uses in if statements, which the
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> Ping!
>
> Any comments here?
>
> Main goal was to allow GEM_WARN_ON as a statement, plus also protect
> uses in if statements, which there are some who I think don't expect the
> branch to completely disappear.
I've said before I don't like the condi
Ping!
Any comments here?
Main goal was to allow GEM_WARN_ON as a statement, plus also protect
uses in if statements, which there are some who I think don't expect the
branch to completely disappear.
Regards,
Tvrtko
On 07/09/2018 12:53, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin
GEM_WAR
From: Tvrtko Ursulin
GEM_WARN_ON currently has dangerous semantics where it is completely
compiled out on !GEM_DEBUG builds. This can leave users who expect it to
be more like a WARN_ON, just without a warning in non-debug builds, in
complete ignorance.
Another gotcha with it is that it cannot b
