On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 5:06 AM Rob Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 4:39 AM Erik Faye-Lund
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2019-05-27 at 13:37 +0200, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2019-05-27 at 04:23 -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > > On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:50 AM Erik Faye-Lund
> > > >
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 4:39 AM Erik Faye-Lund
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2019-05-27 at 13:37 +0200, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-05-27 at 04:23 -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:50 AM Erik Faye-Lund
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2019-05-25 at 15:44 -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
On Mon, 2019-05-27 at 13:37 +0200, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-05-27 at 04:23 -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> > On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:50 AM Erik Faye-Lund
> > wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2019-05-25 at 15:44 -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > > This ends up embedded in a for loop expression, ie. the C
On Mon, 2019-05-27 at 04:23 -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:50 AM Erik Faye-Lund
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2019-05-25 at 15:44 -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > This ends up embedded in a for loop expression, ie. the C part in
> > > an
> > > for (A;B;C)
> > >
> > > iirc, that means it
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:50 AM Erik Faye-Lund
wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2019-05-25 at 15:44 -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> > This ends up embedded in a for loop expression, ie. the C part in an
> > for (A;B;C)
> >
> > iirc, that means it needs to be a C expr rather than statement.. or
> > something roughly
On Sat, 2019-05-25 at 15:44 -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> This ends up embedded in a for loop expression, ie. the C part in an
> for (A;B;C)
>
> iirc, that means it needs to be a C expr rather than statement.. or
> something roughly like that, I'm too lazy to dig out my C grammar
>
Can't you just
This ends up embedded in a for loop expression, ie. the C part in an for (A;B;C)
iirc, that means it needs to be a C expr rather than statement.. or
something roughly like that, I'm too lazy to dig out my C grammar
BR,
-R
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 3:39 PM Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>
> Why not just do
Why not just do it in a way that works for everyone? Both the do/while
method and the ifdef-based method that I suggested work everywhere. Or
is there another reason you prefer to use those statement expressions?
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 6:21 PM Rob Clark wrote:
>
> Is there a convenient #ifdef I
Is there a convenient #ifdef I can use to guard the list_assert()
macro.. I don't really mind if MSVC can't have this, but would rather
not let it prevent the rest of us from having nice things
BR,
-R
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 1:23 PM Jason Ekstrand wrote:
>
> Yeah, that's a GNU extension. It
Yeah, that's a GNU extension. It also works in clang but not MSVC which is
used to build NIR.
On May 25, 2019 13:30:29 Rob Clark wrote:
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 11:13 AM Ilia Mirkin wrote:
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 2:03 PM Rob Clark wrote:
>
> From: Rob Clark
>
> Debugging use of unsafe
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 11:13 AM Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 2:03 PM Rob Clark wrote:
> >
> > From: Rob Clark
> >
> > Debugging use of unsafe iterators when you should have used the _safe
> > version sucks. Add some DEBUG build support to catch and assert if
> > someone does
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 2:03 PM Rob Clark wrote:
>
> From: Rob Clark
>
> Debugging use of unsafe iterators when you should have used the _safe
> version sucks. Add some DEBUG build support to catch and assert if
> someone does that.
>
> I didn't update the UPPERCASE verions of the iterators.
From: Rob Clark
Debugging use of unsafe iterators when you should have used the _safe
version sucks. Add some DEBUG build support to catch and assert if
someone does that.
I didn't update the UPPERCASE verions of the iterators. They should
probably be deprecated/removed.
Signed-off-by: Rob
13 matches
Mail list logo
