[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 3/3] gallium: Add c99_compat.h to u_bitcast.h

[Brian Paul]

On 08/08/2016 08:37 AM, Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
> Brian,
>
> On Monday, 8 August 2016 08:27:40 CEST Brian Paul wrote:
>
>  > On 08/06/2016 12:42 AM, Mathias.Froehlich at gmx.net wrote:
>
>  > > From: Mathias Fröhlich <mathias.froehlich at web.de>
>
>  > >
>
>  > > We need this for 'inline'.
>
>  > >
>
>  > > Signed-off-by: Mathias Fröhlich <Mathias.Froehlich at web.de>
>
>  > > ---
>
>  > > src/gallium/auxiliary/util/u_bitcast.h | 2 ++
>
>  > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
>  > >
>
>  > > diff --git a/src/gallium/auxiliary/util/u_bitcast.h
> b/src/gallium/auxiliary/util/u_bitcast.h
>
>  > > index b1f9938..e8fb0fe 100644
>
>  > > --- a/src/gallium/auxiliary/util/u_bitcast.h
>
>  > > +++ b/src/gallium/auxiliary/util/u_bitcast.h
>
>  > > @@ -30,6 +30,8 @@
>
>  > >
>
>  > > #include <string.h>
>
>  > >
>
>  > > +#include "c99_compat.h"
>
>  > > +
>
>  > > #ifdef __cplusplus
>
>  > > extern "C" {
>
>  > > #endif
>
>  > >
>
>  >
>
>  > Shouldn't this get squashed into patch 1?
>
> No, i don't think so.
>
> Patch 1 is about src/util/bitscan.h.

You're right.  I was hasty.  I had applied your patch series, tried to 
compile it and then hit the issue.  It turns out that I actually have 
this issue even without any of your patches applied (I didn't check that 
before).

I don't know why my local build is failing while appveyor and our 
in-house automated build seem OK.  But applying your patch 3 alone fixes 
things for me.


>
> The series did so far *not* touch
>
> src/gallium/auxiliary/util/u_bitcast.h at all.
>
> I just put that there since you seem to have stepped onto
>
> that. And it appeared to me that I kindly asked for testing
>
> that seems to be hold back by that unrelated compile failure.
>
> And if in the end your compile is fixed with my pending push
>
> both will be happy then. Right?

Yeah, I applied your whole series and the MSVC build seems OK.  However, 
I'm hitting a new runtime crash (even after fixing the unrelated issue 
from Marek's rewrite of the state tracker validation code).  It looks 
like patch 2/3 is the problem.  I'll try to dig deeper tomorrow...

-Brian