Well I think, if you rework a series, please add something like try xyz
or so ... Also try to avoid to add / remove some patches, at least if
they actually don't have anything todo with the rest of the patch set
(if they could be submitted on their own).
On 27.09.2012 10:00, Nozomi Kodama wrote:
> + TRACE("%u, %p, %p, %p, %p, %p, %p\n", order, dir, &top, &bottom, rout, gout, bout);
Sure, that's an other form of the trace. I think we hadn't one with such
a version... other traces in the file look like (the one marked with *
is my preferred version):
TRACE("out %p, order %u, a %p, b %p\n", out, order, a, b); *
TRACE("(%p, %p, %u)\n", pout, pin, n);
I don't think it makes much sense to print the address for &top. It
doesn't gather some useful information, does it? Instead you may print
the actual content for r,g,b if you like.
> + if ( gout )
Also here, I prefer "if (gout)" ... I know there are several
occurrences for the other style ... I should have mentioned that earlier
... it's not something which is critical...
git grep "if (" dlls/d3dx9_36/* | wc -l reveals ~2000
while git grep "if ( " dlls/d3dx9_36/* | wc -l does ~100
> + ok(relative_error(expected, blue_out[j]) <
admitted_error,
> + "Blue: case %u, order %u: expected[%u] = %f,
received %f \n", l, order, j, expected, blue_out[j]);
Please indent 8 instead of 2 spaces when a new line is used ...
Cheers
Rico