[Mesa-dev] [PATCH mesa] anv: don't crash on vkDestroyDevice(NULL)

[Jason Ekstrand]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 1:50 AM Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom at intel.com>
wrote:

> On Wednesday, 2018-07-25 14:00:29 -0700, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > Quoting Eric Engestrom (2018-07-25 11:45:56)
> > > CovID: 1438132
> > > Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom at intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  src/intel/vulkan/anv_device.c | 4 +++-
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/src/intel/vulkan/anv_device.c
> b/src/intel/vulkan/anv_device.c
> > > index 04fd6a829ed60081abc4..3664f80c24dc34955196 100644
> > > --- a/src/intel/vulkan/anv_device.c
> > > +++ b/src/intel/vulkan/anv_device.c
> > > @@ -1832,11 +1832,13 @@ void anv_DestroyDevice(
> > >      const VkAllocationCallbacks*                pAllocator)
> > >  {
> > >     ANV_FROM_HANDLE(anv_device, device, _device);
> > > -   struct anv_physical_device *physical_device =
> &device->instance->physicalDevice;
> > > +   struct anv_physical_device *physical_device;
> >
> > Is there a particular reason to create the pointer her but assign it
> after the
> > null check rather than just move the null check between the
> ANV_FROM_HANDLE and
> > the anv_pysical_device?
>
> Just the habit of always putting variable declarations before any logic
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> I thought that was considered best-practice; has that changed?
>

Yup; welcome to C99. :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/attachments/20180726/eb842c00/attachment.html>