On 22 November 2015 at 23:53, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On 22 November 2015 at 23:22, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: >>> There are some places that you're not fixing up... >> I thought I fixed all cases - which ones do you have in mind ? The >> ones in debug_destroy() or the comparison in _mesa_PushDebugGroup() ? > > There was a check for <= 0 which would now have to be <= 1 I guess? Did not see this one. Thanks.
> And something else, I already forgot. > Which is ? >> >>> would this >>> alternatively be resolved by returning GroupStackDepth+1 in >>> _mesa_get_debug_state_int and leaving everything else alone? >>> >> True and it will result in a shorter patch. Then again the name would >> be wrong :-\ > > So rename it to CurrentGroup or something. Having to constantly do n-1 > everywhere increases the likelihood of bugs/misunderstanding down the > line. > I'm inclined to go with "keep things as defined in the spec" be that names or definitions (see length in one of the later patches). Although if people feel so much against that so be it (i.e. looking for a third person to cast their view). Thanks Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
