On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> From: Marek Olšák <marek.ol...@amd.com>
>>>>
>>>> and remove number assignments which are consecutive
>>>> ---
>>>> src/gallium/include/pipe/p_defines.h | 378
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++----------------
>>>> 1 file changed, 205 insertions(+), 173 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/src/gallium/include/pipe/p_defines.h
>>>> b/src/gallium/include/pipe/p_defines.h
>>>> index 1aef21d..6bb180d 100644
>>>> --- a/src/gallium/include/pipe/p_defines.h
>>>> +++ b/src/gallium/include/pipe/p_defines.h
>>>> @@ -51,49 +51,56 @@ enum pipe_error
>>>> /* TODO */
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> +enum {
>>>
>>> so, I would kinda like to use named enums, and then update the state
>>> structs to use 'em (since it would make gcc and gdb grok them
>>> better).. ofc it is a big change and doesn't have to be done in all
>>> one go, but why not give the enum's names in this first step?
>>
>> Enum type names can't be used everywhere. A lot of states are packed
>> (unsigned x:n). Not sure how enums work with that. In any case, let's
>> add the names later if needed.
>
> I *believe* 'enum foo name : n' works.. it has been used in other
> places, but I didn't verify that the structure layout was the same
> (and I'm not 100% sure about msvc, etc)..
btw, to be clear, I wasn't proposing to change all the state structs
as well in the same patch.. I don't believe it would be a problem to
give enum names now and leave "unsigned foo : n" for now..
BR,
-R
> BR,
> -R
>
>
>>
>> Marek
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
