On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Roland Scheidegger <srol...@vmware.com> wrote: > Initially, width/height were actually needed because not all > pipe_surface objects were backed by pipe_resource objects (that was ages > ago...). Hence the comment when that was fixed, since it was always > actually possible to derive this from the resource (but a bit too > complex to change all the code...). > Are there now situations when you can't figure this out from the > resource? Or do you think it's actually useful as a convenience member?
It's useful and it would complicated to remove. Marek > > Roland > > Am 17.07.2018 um 07:37 schrieb Dave Airlie: >> From: Dave Airlie <airl...@redhat.com> >> >> We do need width/height for things, remove the outdated >> comment. >> --- >> src/gallium/include/pipe/p_state.h | 1 - >> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/src/gallium/include/pipe/p_state.h >> b/src/gallium/include/pipe/p_state.h >> index 809aa087ce0..b55624d698d 100644 >> --- a/src/gallium/include/pipe/p_state.h >> +++ b/src/gallium/include/pipe/p_state.h >> @@ -435,7 +435,6 @@ struct pipe_surface >> struct pipe_resource *texture; /**< resource into which this is a view >> */ >> struct pipe_context *context; /**< context this surface belongs to */ >> >> - /* XXX width/height should be removed */ >> uint16_t width; /**< logical width in pixels */ >> uint16_t height; /**< logical height in pixels */ >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev