On Monday, 2017-07-10 17:02:48 +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 10 July 2017 at 16:08, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> > No implementation of unreachable() should allow code execution to
> > keep going past it.
> >
> > We can discuss whether we should have a dead loop, abort(), or do
> > something else, bu
On 10 July 2017 at 16:08, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> No implementation of unreachable() should allow code execution to
> keep going past it.
>
> We can discuss whether we should have a dead loop, abort(), or do
> something else, but the current "meh, let's just keep going" is
> just wrong.
>
> Cc: me
No implementation of unreachable() should allow code execution to
keep going past it.
We can discuss whether we should have a dead loop, abort(), or do
something else, but the current "meh, let's just keep going" is
just wrong.
Cc: mesa-sta...@lists.freedesktop.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom
