On 23 November 2015 at 01:15, Timothy Arceri <t_arc...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Mon, 2015-11-23 at 00:59 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote: >> On 23 November 2015 at 00:35, Timothy Arceri <t_arc...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> > On Sun, 2015-11-22 at 23:21 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote: >> > > Based on one's interpretation of the spec one may say that length (when >> > > non negative) either considers or doesn't the null terminator. >> > > >> > > I'm leaning towards the latter case, although the CTS authors are >> > > thinking about the former. >> > >> > The spec says: >> > >> > "The lengths of all messages, including their null terminators, must >> > be >> > guaranteed to be less or equal to the value of the >> > implementation-dependent constant MAX_DEBUG_MESSAGE_LENGTH." >> > >> So it seems that we're missing the "walk over all messages, calculate >> and check the total length" step. > > No I think the spec is just badly worded. There is MAX_DEBUG_LOGGED_MESSAGES > to limit the number of messaged so as long as a message is not longer than > MAX_DEBUG_MESSAGE_LENGTH and there isn't more than MAX_DEBUG_LOGGED_MESSAGES > then there should be no need to do that. > I guess one should have used "The length of any message, including its null terminator" here. Then again grammar wasn't my favourite subject. </grammar nazi>
Need to double check what CTS was doing there... so many message length tests. -Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
