Hi,
I added the "not implemented yet" comment back, although there are other places
that use 65535 so it could be some kind of hardware limit...
The only reason that I went with "camel case" r300FooBar names is because that's
what 90% of the driver uses; it's easier to change a few r300_foo_bar to
r300FooBar than the other way around. The important thing is it's consistent.
Now I just hope I don't get shot for all the commits. ;)
On 5/9/07, Brian Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On 5/8/07, Christoph Brill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I reviewed the cleanup done by Olliver McFadden and had the following
> >> questions:
> >>
> >> -int r300_get_num_verts(r300ContextPtr rmesa, int num_verts, int prim)
> >> +static int r300NumVerts(r300ContextPtr rmesa, int num_verts, int prim)
> >>
> >> Is it necessary/usefull that the function is static?
> >
> > I think it's better to have static function, i am thinking of symbol
> export and
> > other things like that.
>
> Yes, make functions static whenever possible.
>
>
> >> -/* Immediate implementation has been removed from CVS. */
> >> -
> >> -/* vertex buffer implementation */
> >> -
> >> -static void inline fire_EB(r300ContextPtr rmesa, unsigned long addr
> >> +static void inline r300FireEB(r300ContextPtr rmesa, unsigned long addr
> >>
> >> Why move all the comments to the head of the file. IMO the method should
> >> have a doxygen comment that states it is the vertex buffer
> >> implementation of fire_EB, right?
> >>
> >>
> >> - if (num_verts > 65535) { /* not implemented yet */
> >> + if (num_verts > 65535) {
> >>
> >> Comments like this should be kept. Otherwise it looks like a hardware
> >> limitation while the limitation can be worked around or the limitation
> >> does not exist.
> >>
> >>
> >> Last but not least is
> >> r300_foo_bar
> >> preferred or
> >> r300FooBar
> >> Which is the one mesa uses?
> >
> > We can use the one we like, i prefer r300_foo_bar over r300FooBar which
> > i dislike but the choice is up to the first person who do big cleanup :)
> and
> > we do not have to conform to mesa coding style for driver but use the one
> > we like the more.
>
> Yes, core Mesa has a fairly consistant naming scheme but it's the
> prerogative of the driver writers to choose their style. That said,
> naming within each driver should be consistant.
>
> -Brian
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
> Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
> control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
> http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Dri-devel mailing list
> Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
--
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
