On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 20:19 +0200, Jakob Sinclair wrote: > On 2016-06-13 12:02, Nicolai Hähnle wrote: > > > > Meh. This is the kind of thing where Coverity should perhaps just > > shut > > up :/ > > I do agree with you that Coverity should perhaps shut up about this > kinda thing > but I couldn't see a reason to have these checks in the code. They > really didn't > contribute to my understanding of the code.
I really disagree here. The conditions check whether swizzle is between X and W (as in, only X,Y,Z,W are allowed). The fact that X maps to 0 is irrelevant. removing the checks impairs readability of the code because the lower bound is now inferred (by being 0) rather than explicit. the same comment applies to your v2. Jan > Although I may be missing > something > important here. > > > Anyway... > > I think for consistency, you should also remove the '- > > PIPE_SWIZZLE_X' > > here, similar to the first hunk. With that changed, > > Forgot about that one. I agree with this change. > > > Reviewed-by: Nicolai Hähnle <[email protected]> > > Thanks! -- Jan Vesely <[email protected]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
