On Friday, March 20, 2015 11:28:28 PM Carl Worth wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20 2015, Chris Forbes wrote: > > I think that having both the existing `struct brw_vs_compile` and a > > function with the same name is going to cause confusion. (same with > > the other non-fs stages) > > In an earlier version of the patch I had brw_vs_do_compile, (there is a > "do" precedent in the code being replaced here). I could go back to that > if it helps. > > -Carl
How about brw_compile_vs_prog? It sounds natural and doesn't appear to conflict with anything.
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
