On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> wrote: >> On 28/09/16 12:33 AM, Rob Clark wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> I had a scan through the rest of pipe_resource allocations, and I think >>> this is the only remaining one (besides r600_alloc_buffer_struct()) >>> which was using MALLOC_STRUCT().. sorry 'bout that >> >> Note that the MALLOC_STRUCT here isn't relevant: >> >> >>> diff --git a/src/gallium/drivers/r300/r300_screen_buffer.c >>> b/src/gallium/drivers/r300/r300_screen_buffer.c >>> index 4747058..24dd92f 100644 >>> --- a/src/gallium/drivers/r300/r300_screen_buffer.c >>> +++ b/src/gallium/drivers/r300/r300_screen_buffer.c >>> @@ -163,6 +163,7 @@ struct pipe_resource *r300_buffer_create(struct >>> pipe_screen *screen, >>> rbuf = MALLOC_STRUCT(r300_resource); >>> >>> rbuf->b.b = *templ; >> >> The pipe_resource::next field is copied in from the template here, so >> the question is really whether the next field of the template is >> initialized to NULL by all callers. > > bleh.. right, ok, I guess I need to track down which callers aren't > zero-initializing the templ.
or do: next = NULL; in all drivers? Marek _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
