On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 22:44 +0200, Jakob Sinclair wrote:
> On 2016-06-14 20:39, Jan Vesely wrote:
> > 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 impai
On 2016-06-14 20:39, Jan Vesely wrote:
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
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
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
On 13.06.2016 03:19, Jakob Sinclair wrote:
PIPE_SWIZZLE_X is always 0 and desc->swizzle is an unsigned char meaning
that desc->swizzle can never be smaller then PIPE_SWIZZLE_X. Removing
these checks doesn't change the code path at all because they would
always give the same result. Issue discover
PIPE_SWIZZLE_X is always 0 and desc->swizzle is an unsigned char meaning
that desc->swizzle can never be smaller then PIPE_SWIZZLE_X. Removing
these checks doesn't change the code path at all because they would
always give the same result. Issue discovered by Coverity.
CID: 1337954
Signed-off-by:
