On Fri, 2016-11-11 at 12:04 -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
> >> +// As a 32-bit integer, this is -1
> >> +#version 4294967295 ese
> >
> > ^^^
> > es ?
>
> Yes. Good catch. With that fixed, R-b?
Yes, sorry.
Reviewed-by: Juan A. Suarez Romero
On 11/11/2016 12:47 AM, Juan A. Suarez Romero wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 11:28 -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
>> From: Ian Romanick
>>
>> One of the possible fixes to bug #97420 was to use -1 (instead of 0)
>> as
>> the "version not set" flag. I believe that would have failed these
>> tests.
>>
>
On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 11:28 -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
> From: Ian Romanick
>
> One of the possible fixes to bug #97420 was to use -1 (instead of 0)
> as
> the "version not set" flag. I believe that would have failed these
> tests.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ian Romanick
> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freed
From: Ian Romanick
One of the possible fixes to bug #97420 was to use -1 (instead of 0) as
the "version not set" flag. I believe that would have failed these tests.
Signed-off-by: Ian Romanick
Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97420
Cc: Juan A. Suarez Romero
Cc: Karol Her
