[v5 2/3] d3dx9: Get rid of constant's length checking for matrix in set_constants().

[Matteo Bruni]

2017-06-27 20:38 GMT+02:00 Paul Gofman <gofmanp at gmail.com>:
> On 06/27/2017 09:34 PM, Matteo Bruni wrote:
>>
>> 2017-06-22 15:11 GMT+02:00 Paul Gofman <gofmanp at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> When count in const_upload_info is calculated precisely (considering
>>> actual
>>> constant set length), boolean matrix setting fall in direct copy path,
>>> unless
>>> transpose is required. The case of incomplete last row for matrix should
>>> be
>>> handled in set_constants() for transposed boolean constant only.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Paul Gofman <gofmanp at gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>> v5:
>>>      - added check for constant size not exceeding parameter size. The
>>> check for
>>>        non array, non struct constants should be sufficient as the
>>> dimensions of
>>>        arrays and structs are derived from const_set data and register
>>> counts
>>>        from constant description is not used for them.
>>
>> I don't understand what you mean here.
>>
>>> @@ -1417,6 +1433,16 @@ static HRESULT init_set_constants_param(struct
>>> d3dx_const_tab *const_tab, ID3DXC
>>>               && !info.transpose && info.minor == info.major_stride
>>>               && info.count == get_offset_reg(const_set.table,
>>> const_set.register_count)
>>>               && info.count * sizeof(unsigned int) <= param->bytes;
>>> +    if (info.minor_remainder && !const_set.direct_copy &&
>>> !info.transpose)
>>> +        FIXME("Incomplete last row for not transposed matrix which
>>> cannot be directly copied, parameter %s.\n",
>>> +                debugstr_a(param->name));
>>> +
>>> +    if (info.major_count > info.major
>>> +            || (info.major_count == info.major && info.minor_remainder))
>>> +    {
>>> +        WARN("Constant dimensions exceed parameter size.\n");
>>> +        return D3DERR_INVALIDCALL;
>>> +    }
>>
>> It seems to me that this catches all the problematic cases.
>>
>>
> Yes, that what I mean above :) I tried to explain why I don't need a
> separate check that for arrays and structs, but probably the explanation is
> less clear than code itself.

Ahh, I see. Indeed the code speaks for itself :D