On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 19:46 +0200, Joakim Sindholt wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 17:24 +0100, José Fonseca wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 09:08 -0700, Joakim Sindholt wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > > I just had a look at debug options in u_debug, specifically enumerated
> > > options in debug_get_flags_op
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 17:24 +0100, José Fonseca wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 09:08 -0700, Joakim Sindholt wrote:
> > Hi.
> > I just had a look at debug options in u_debug, specifically enumerated
> > options in debug_get_flags_option(). It stands out that struct
> > debug_named_value doesn't have
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 09:08 -0700, Joakim Sindholt wrote:
> Hi.
> I just had a look at debug options in u_debug, specifically enumerated
> options in debug_get_flags_option(). It stands out that struct
> debug_named_value doesn't have a description field, as is used in r300g.
> I'm guessing that fo
Hi.
I just had a look at debug options in u_debug, specifically enumerated
options in debug_get_flags_option(). It stands out that struct
debug_named_value doesn't have a description field, as is used in r300g.
I'm guessing that for this reason, r300g has it's own system, and I'm
reluctant to use i
