On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 7:19:24 PM PDT Matt Turner wrote: > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 11:02:58 AM PDT Rafael Antognolli wrote: > >> Since the enum is in the same header now, we can use it as the type of > >> the field. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Rafael Antognolli <rafael.antogno...@intel.com> > >> --- > >> > >> PS: We can merge this with the previous patch too if that's better. > >> > >> src/intel/compiler/brw_compiler.h | 2 +- > >> src/intel/compiler/brw_fs.cpp | 2 +- > >> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/src/intel/compiler/brw_compiler.h > >> b/src/intel/compiler/brw_compiler.h > >> index b5b1ee9..92fd4a2 100644 > >> --- a/src/intel/compiler/brw_compiler.h > >> +++ b/src/intel/compiler/brw_compiler.h > >> @@ -504,7 +504,7 @@ struct brw_wm_prog_data { > >> /** @} */ > >> } binding_table; > >> > >> - uint8_t computed_depth_mode; > >> + enum brw_pixel_shader_computed_depth_mode computed_depth_mode; > >> bool computed_stencil; > > > > I think this may expand it from an 8-bit value to a 32-bit value. > > It might have been anyway. Does the size of the struct stay the same? > > If it's marked as "PACKED" it should stay the same size. >
It isn't. I'd be fine with adding PACKED. --Ken
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev