On 12/12/14 19:33, Jan Vesely wrote:
Signed-off-by: Jan Vesely
---
tests/spec/ext_image_dma_buf_import/intel_external_sampler_only.c | 2 +-
tests/spec/ext_image_dma_buf_import/intel_unsupported_format.c| 2 +-
tests/spec/ext_image_dma_buf_import/invalid_attributes.c | 2 +-
te
On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 13:49 +, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> On 12/02/15 18:51, Jan Vesely wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 11:17 +, Emil Velikov wrote:
> >> On 11 February 2015 at 16:12, Jan Vesely wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 10:28 -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
> I just want to be clear I
On 12/02/15 18:51, Jan Vesely wrote:
On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 11:17 +, Emil Velikov wrote:
On 11 February 2015 at 16:12, Jan Vesely wrote:
On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 10:28 -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
I just want to be clear I was asking a question, I don't really care one
way or another, I would ju
On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 11:17 +, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 11 February 2015 at 16:12, Jan Vesely wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 10:28 -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
> >> I just want to be clear I was asking a question, I don't really care one
> >> way or another, I would just rather not see code chu
On 11 February 2015 at 16:12, Jan Vesely wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 10:28 -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
>> I just want to be clear I was asking a question, I don't really care one
>> way or another, I would just rather not see code churn if it doesn't
>> actually buy us anything.
>
> Not sure what
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:12:03AM -0500, Jan Vesely wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 10:28 -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > I just want to be clear I was asking a question, I don't really care one
> > way or another, I would just rather not see code churn if it doesn't
> > actually buy us anything.
>
On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 10:28 -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
> I just want to be clear I was asking a question, I don't really care one
> way or another, I would just rather not see code churn if it doesn't
> actually buy us anything.
Not sure what the question is here. The idea is to force msvc like
lim
I just want to be clear I was asking a question, I don't really care one
way or another, I would just rather not see code churn if it doesn't
actually buy us anything.
Dylan
On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 10:57:31AM -0500, Jan Vesely wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-02-06 at 19:46 +, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> > I
On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 21:42 +, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> On 09/02/15 21:29, Jan Vesely wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 19:49 +, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> >> On 09/02/15 19:17, Ian Romanick wrote:
> >>> On 02/06/2015 11:46 AM, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> I haven't tried this sort of code with MSVC 2
On 09/02/15 21:29, Jan Vesely wrote:
On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 19:49 +, Jose Fonseca wrote:
On 09/02/15 19:17, Ian Romanick wrote:
On 02/06/2015 11:46 AM, Jose Fonseca wrote:
I haven't tried this sort of code with MSVC 2013 U4, but at least in the
past, MSVC 2013 was refusing certain kinds of
On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 19:49 +, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> On 09/02/15 19:17, Ian Romanick wrote:
> > On 02/06/2015 11:46 AM, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> >> I haven't tried this sort of code with MSVC 2013 U4, but at least in the
> >> past, MSVC 2013 was refusing certain kinds of variable length arrays.
>
On 09/02/15 19:17, Ian Romanick wrote:
On 02/06/2015 11:46 AM, Jose Fonseca wrote:
I haven't tried this sort of code with MSVC 2013 U4, but at least in the
past, MSVC 2013 was refusing certain kinds of variable length arrays.
And Jan's patch is a stepping stone to -Wvla option when compiling
(
On 02/06/2015 11:46 AM, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> I haven't tried this sort of code with MSVC 2013 U4, but at least in the
> past, MSVC 2013 was refusing certain kinds of variable length arrays.
>
> And Jan's patch is a stepping stone to -Wvla option when compiling
> (option which apply to the whole
On Fri, 2015-02-06 at 19:46 +, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> I haven't tried this sort of code with MSVC 2013 U4, but at least in the
> past, MSVC 2013 was refusing certain kinds of variable length arrays.
>
> And Jan's patch is a stepping stone to -Wvla option when compiling
> (option which apply
I haven't tried this sort of code with MSVC 2013 U4, but at least in the
past, MSVC 2013 was refusing certain kinds of variable length arrays.
And Jan's patch is a stepping stone to -Wvla option when compiling
(option which apply to the whole tree, including parts that are not
built with MSVC
Is this actually necessary? I though that we required MSVC 2013 u4,
because it has c99 support.
Also, dma_buf tests require libdrm_intel, which doesn't exist/work on
windows, so I don't think anyone will be building them with msvc anytime
soon.
Dylan
On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 11:49:08AM -0500, Jan
ping
On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 19:13 -0500, Jan Vesely wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 14:49 -0800, Matt Turner wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Jan Vesely wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 13:37 -0800, Matt Turner wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Jan Vesely
> > >> wrote:
>
On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 14:49 -0800, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Jan Vesely wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 13:37 -0800, Matt Turner wrote:
> >> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Jan Vesely wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 12:58 -0800, Matt Turner wrote:
> >> >> I'm cur
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Jan Vesely wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 13:37 -0800, Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Jan Vesely wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 12:58 -0800, Matt Turner wrote:
>> >> I'm curious what the motivation for removing variably-sized arrays is,
On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 13:37 -0800, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Jan Vesely wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 12:58 -0800, Matt Turner wrote:
> >> I'm curious what the motivation for removing variably-sized arrays is,
> >> but if I accept that that's a good thing to do then
It's impossible for them to be built on MSVC, they're guarded in cmake
by LBIDRM_FOUND
On Friday, December 12, 2014 01:37:09 PM Matt Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Jan Vesely wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 12:58 -0800, Matt Turner wrote:
> >> I'm curious what the motivation f
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Jan Vesely wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 12:58 -0800, Matt Turner wrote:
>> I'm curious what the motivation for removing variably-sized arrays is,
>> but if I accept that that's a good thing to do then the first patch
>> makes sense, but I don't understand this on
On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 12:58 -0800, Matt Turner wrote:
> I'm curious what the motivation for removing variably-sized arrays is,
> but if I accept that that's a good thing to do then the first patch
> makes sense, but I don't understand this one.
>
> How is a variably-size array different from using
I'm curious what the motivation for removing variably-sized arrays is,
but if I accept that that's a good thing to do then the first patch
makes sense, but I don't understand this one.
How is a variably-size array different from using alloca()?
___
Pigli
Signed-off-by: Jan Vesely
---
tests/spec/ext_image_dma_buf_import/intel_external_sampler_only.c | 2 +-
tests/spec/ext_image_dma_buf_import/intel_unsupported_format.c| 2 +-
tests/spec/ext_image_dma_buf_import/invalid_attributes.c | 2 +-
tests/spec/ext_image_dma_buf_import/invalid_h
25 matches
Mail list logo
