On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Jason Ekstrand
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Emil Velikov
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> Why do you remove the C99 initializer ? Anything wrong with using it ?
>>
>
> Mostly readability and matching what we did earlier with the other surface
> stat
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Emil Velikov
wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> Why do you remove the C99 initializer ? Anything wrong with using it ?
>
Mostly readability and matching what we did earlier with the other surface
state struct.
>
> On 11 June 2016 at 17:02, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > ---
>
Hi Jason,
Why do you remove the C99 initializer ? Anything wrong with using it ?
On 11 June 2016 at 17:02, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> ---
> src/intel/isl/isl_surface_state.c | 46
> +++
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/in
---
src/intel/isl/isl_surface_state.c | 46 +++
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/intel/isl/isl_surface_state.c
b/src/intel/isl/isl_surface_state.c
index ca13175..2026f80 100644
--- a/src/intel/isl/isl_surface_state.c
+++ b/src