[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 08/20] i965/cfg: Add functions to test if a block is a successor/predecessor.

[Matt Turner]

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Pohjolainen, Topi
<topi.pohjolainen at intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 07:54:15PM -0700, Matt Turner wrote:
>> ---
>>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_cfg.cpp | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_cfg.h   |  2 ++
>>  2 files changed, 26 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_cfg.cpp b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_cfg.cpp
>> index d806b83..9cd8b9f 100644
>> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_cfg.cpp
>> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_cfg.cpp
>> @@ -71,6 +71,30 @@ bblock_t::add_successor(void *mem_ctx, bblock_t *successor)
>>     children.push_tail(::link(mem_ctx, successor));
>>  }
>>
>> +bool
>> +bblock_t::is_predecessor_of(const bblock_t *block) const
>> +{
>> +   foreach_list_typed_safe (bblock_link, parent, link, &block->parents) {
>
> I read patch number three again, and noticed this small formatting change
> there as well. I haven't seen us leaving the space before "(" anywhere else.

I figure I should have a space between the macro and the ( since we
put a space there for regular for loops.

>> +      if (parent->block == this) {
>> +         return true;
>> +      }
>
> We have one line blocks with and without {}. I just thought I mention in
> case you didn't mean to.

Right, I'll drop the {}.