On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:06:57AM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > 2015-05-28 4:51 GMT-03:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx>: > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 03:40:32PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > >> 2015-05-07 14:38 GMT-03:00 Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@xxxxxxxxx>: > >> > We now have a special macro for those cases. > >> > >> I'm not sure if this patch is an improvement. Before it, we always > >> knew which "switch" statement was bad since we used to print either > >> "PDiv" or "KDiv". After the patch, it will not be possible to know > >> from which switch statement the error came from. Of course, there's > >> the advantage of at least knowing the value. I'd vote to either skip > >> this patch, or improve the MISSING_CASE macro to be able to account > >> for multiple uses on the same function. But I'm open to arugmentation > >> :) > > > > MISSING_CASE is a WARN, which also prints the line number. Not enough? > > Line numbers are not very useful unless you're absolutely sure which > tree/commit someone is running. And it still takes a lot of work to > checkout the correct tree/commit and discover which of the WARNs is on > that specific line. Life is too short, let's drop this patch. -- Damien _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
