Comment # 13
on bug 106928
from ubizjak@gmail.com
(In reply to Roland Scheidegger from comment #12) > (In reply to ubizjak from comment #11) > > The (effectively the same patch as yours) proposed patch would be: > > > > diff --git a/src/gallium/drivers/r600/sb/sb_expr.cpp > > b/src/gallium/drivers/r600/sb/sb_expr.cpp > > index 7a5d62c8e8..a609d1377f 100644 > > --- a/src/gallium/drivers/r600/sb/sb_expr.cpp > > +++ b/src/gallium/drivers/r600/sb/sb_expr.cpp > > @@ -714,6 +714,8 @@ bool expr_handler::fold_assoc(alu_node *n) { > > > > n->src.resize(2); > > n->bc.set_op(ALU_OP2_ADD); > > + fold_alu_op2(*n); > > + return true; > > } > > } else if (last_arg >= 0) { > > n->src[0] = a->src[last_arg]; > > > > WDYT? > > I am not quite convinced it's ok to return true (in fold_alu_op3) if the > _expression_ hasn't really been folded. You are quite right that just above it > looks similar, but all other places always return the return value of > fold_alu_op2 when calling into it from fold_alu_op3. > (Not saying it isn't correct, just saying I can't tell...) Beeing a newcomer, I'm also not too familiar with this code, and there are no comments on what the return value really means. Instead of guessing, is it possible for you to invite the author or other knowledgeable people from mesa community to the discussion in this bugreport? Looking at the commit logs of src/gallium/drivers/r600/sb, there are quite some experts that can perhaps help here...
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
