On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Nicolai Hähnle <nhaeh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 23.04.2017 01:10, Marek Olšák wrote: >> >> From: Marek Olšák <marek.ol...@amd.com> >> >> There is no reason to check for ~0. >> Also remove the incorrect comment. >> --- >> src/mesa/state_tracker/st_draw.c | 9 ++------- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/src/mesa/state_tracker/st_draw.c >> b/src/mesa/state_tracker/st_draw.c >> index d710284..e510d43 100644 >> --- a/src/mesa/state_tracker/st_draw.c >> +++ b/src/mesa/state_tracker/st_draw.c >> @@ -200,28 +200,23 @@ st_draw_vbo(struct gl_context *ctx, >> if (ib) { >> /* Get index bounds for user buffers. */ >> if (!index_bounds_valid) >> if (!all_varyings_in_vbos(arrays)) >> vbo_get_minmax_indices(ctx, prims, ib, &min_index, >> &max_index, >> nr_prims); >> >> setup_index_buffer(st, ib); >> >> info.indexed = TRUE; >> - if (min_index != ~0U && max_index != ~0U) { >> - info.min_index = min_index; >> - info.max_index = max_index; >> - } >> + info.min_index = min_index; >> + info.max_index = max_index; > > > For this and the previous patch, I think it would be cleaner to keep the > semantics of pipe_draw_info::min_index/max_index to always make sense. This > would mean dropping the previous patch, and changing this patch to only set > the min_index/max_index if index_bounds_valid (rather than the ~0U check).
The old code didn't check index_bounds_valid, and u_vbuf already treats max_index == ~0 as invalid range. Instead of starting to use index_bounds_valid here, I'd prefer it if we removed index_bounds_valid and only rely on max_index == ~0 from vbo. Marek _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev