On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 05:48:20 PM Jason Ekstrand wrote: > 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
I think that should work, and is probably clearer. I'll let you do it.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
