On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> > wrote: > > How about we do things slightly differently and check > "(__node)->field.next > > != NULL" just like we do on regular versions. Since the check happens > > between the increment step and running the user's code, __node is valid > for > > every invocation of the checking condition. Would that make you feel > better > > about it? > > Yeah, that seems a lot clearer. > Ken, Are you ok with that? If so, do you want to make the change or shall I? --Jason
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
