On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult > <enrico.weig...@gr13.net> wrote: >> On 03.08.2016 13:25, Rob Clark wrote: >> >>> Probably it would be on a case-by-case basis. There are at least a >>> few places with some useful debug code, ie. not the kind that you'd >>> normally enable, but stuff you'd want if you were making changes in >>> those areas.. >> >> In those cases, shouldn't we instead introduce proper #define's ? > > At least in the cases I am thinking of, I'm not sure I really see the > value in that.. it isn't really stuff I'd ask a user to turn on. (If > it came to that, I'd just ask the user to send me an apitrace so that > I could debug, and possibly change some #if 0 to #if 1, and/or add > other debug code in the process.) > > There is a DEBUG define that is enabled for --enable-debug builds, but > most of the #if 0 debug code I've seen is stuff that is either too > much overhead, or too much printf spam for debug builds. > > Anyways, I'm not saying there aren't some #if 0's that could be > removed.. some look relatively trivial and easy enough to recreate. > And/or useless. I'm just saying we shouldn't blindly remove them all. > > And I wouldn't be surprised if there were some '#ifdef SOMETHING's > that are actually worth removing.
just fyi, as far as clean-up tasks, fixing coverity[1] issues is a good thing.. it does require requesting access, since I guess by default the issues are not visible without being granted access (which in more security sensitive projects, at least, makes sense) [1] https://scan.coverity.com/projects/mesa _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
