wined3d: Check with "&& FALSE"

[Paul Vriens]

Hi,

In the past we had some occurrences of comparisons with NULL flags. I had this 
check run again today and it came back with:

./dlls/wined3d/arb_program_shader.c:316:         if(max_constantsF + 
extra_constants_needed + 1 < GL_LIMITS(pshader_constantsF) && FALSE) {

Is this line correct? Doesn't this alway return FALSE?

[H. Verbeet]

On 17/03/2008, Paul Vriens  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the past we had some occurrences of comparisons with NULL flags. I had this
>  check run again today and it came back with:
>
> ./dlls/wined3d/arb_program_shader.c:316:         if(max_constantsF +
>  extra_constants_needed + 1 < GL_LIMITS(pshader_constantsF) && FALSE) {
>
> Is this line correct? Doesn't this alway return FALSE?

Looks like leftover debug code to me.

[Paul Vriens]

H. Verbeet wrote:
> On 17/03/2008, Paul Vriens  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > In the past we had some occurrences of comparisons with NULL flags. I had this
> >  check run again today and it came back with:
> >
> > ./dlls/wined3d/arb_program_shader.c:316:         if(max_constantsF +
> >  extra_constants_needed + 1 < GL_LIMITS(pshader_constantsF) && FALSE) {
> >
> > Is this line correct? Doesn't this alway return FALSE?
>
> Looks like leftover debug code to me.

Hi,

This is the commit responsible for this change:

commit 6313e0ffff5f57e437937e17fa482694d17d9664
Author: Stefan Dösinger 
Date:   Fri Sep 14 13:02:59 2007 +0200

wined3d: SRGB write correction emulation.

[Stefan Dösinger]

Am Montag, 17. März 2008 13:48:30 schrieb Paul Vriens:
> H. Verbeet wrote:
> > On 17/03/2008, Paul Vriens  wrote:
> > > Is this line correct? Doesn't this alway return FALSE?
> >
> > Looks like leftover debug code to me.

Yes, this is leftover debugging code. Feel free to send a patch to remove it

[Paul Vriens]

Stefan Dösinger wrote:
> Am Montag, 17. März 2008 13:48:30 schrieb Paul Vriens:
> > H. Verbeet wrote:
> > > On 17/03/2008, Paul Vriens  wrote:
> > > > Is this line correct? Doesn't this alway return FALSE?
> > >
> > > Looks like leftover debug code to me.
>
> Yes, this is leftover debugging code. Feel free to send a patch to remove it

OK, I'll sent a patch for that.

What's "strange" though is that Coverity didn't pick this up as DEADCODE.

Cheers,

Paul.

[Paul Vriens]

Stefan Dösinger wrote:
> Am Montag, 17. März 2008 13:48:30 schrieb Paul Vriens:
> > H. Verbeet wrote:
> > > On 17/03/2008, Paul Vriens  wrote:
> > > > Is this line correct? Doesn't this alway return FALSE?
> > >
> > > Looks like leftover debug code to me.
>
> Yes, this is leftover debugging code. Feel free to send a patch to remove it

A patch to remove the debugging code is no problem. It's the surrounding 
comments that worry me (what's should stay, what should go, what should change).

I'd rather have you (or any other volunteer) put this somewhere on your 
todo-list :-)