On 11/22/2013 12:23 PM, Francisco Jerez wrote: > Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> writes: > >> On 11/22/2013 11:27 AM, Ian Romanick wrote: >>> On 11/22/2013 12:09 AM, Petri Latvala wrote: >>>> [...] >>>> @@ -546,6 +548,12 @@ private: >>>> * If true, then register allocation should fail instead of spilling. >>>> */ >>>> const bool no_spills; >>>> + >>>> + /* >>>> + * Make noncopyable. >>>> + */ >>>> + vec4_visitor(const vec4_visitor&); >>>> + vec4_visitor& operator=(const vec4_visitor&); >> [...] >> Or you could just be sensible and just not make copies of things where >> it makes no sense to do so... >> >> I would drop this hunk...it's unrelated and unnecessary. >> > > It makes it less likely to make mistakes, doesn't it? E.g. in cases > where you pass an argument by value where you really meant to pass it by > reference. I think our code would benefit from doing this consistently, > not only because it tells the compiler which classes it makes sense to > copy and which ones don't, but also because it makes the semantics of > the class clearer to developers.
Ah, I see...the point is that you might accidentally do: void foo(vec4_visitor v, int bar); and end up copying the world, when you meant to pass by reference. I guess that's useful. I probably wouldn't NAK that. I was thinking you were trying to prevent things like: vec4_visitor v2(v); vec4_visitor v3 = v; which suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the code which a compiler error is unlikely to help you overcome. At any rate, it's really a separate change, so it should be a separate patch (as Ian mentioned). Each patch should ideally only make one specific change. Smaller patches are almost always better. --Ken _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
