From 67388c1ef27e9ff4d7f60a496dbaea4b290dc741 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jason Ekstrand Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 18:36:30 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] util: Fix foreach_list_typed_safe when exec_node is not at offset 0. __next and __prev are pointers to the structure containing the exec_node link, not the embedded exec_node. NULL checks would fail unless the embedded exec_node happened to be at offset 0 in the parent struct. v2: Jason Ekstrand : Use "(__node)->__field.next != NULL" to check for the end of the list instead of the "&__next->__field != NULL". The former is far more obviously correct as it matches what the non-safe versions do. The original code tried to avoid any use of __next as the client code may delete it during its execution. However, since the looping condition is checked after the iteration clause but before the client code is executed, we know that __node is valid during the looping condition. Signed-off-by: Jason Ekstrand Reviewed-by: Matt Turner Reviewed-by: Connor Abbott Reviewed-by: Kenneth Graunke --- src/glsl/list.h | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/glsl/list.h b/src/glsl/list.h index ddb98f76f67..15fcd4abd1c 100644 --- a/src/glsl/list.h +++ b/src/glsl/list.h @@ -684,7 +684,7 @@ inline void exec_node::insert_before(exec_list *before) exec_node_data(__type, (__list)->head, __field), \ * __next = \ exec_node_data(__type, (__node)->__field.next, __field); \ - __next != NULL; \ + (__node)->__field.next != NULL; \ __node = __next, __next = \ exec_node_data(__type, (__next)->__field.next, __field)) @@ -693,7 +693,7 @@ inline void exec_node::insert_before(exec_list *before) exec_node_data(__type, (__list)->tail_pred, __field), \ * __prev = \ exec_node_data(__type, (__node)->__field.prev, __field); \ - __prev != NULL; \ + (__node)->__field.prev != NULL; \ __node = __prev, __prev = \ exec_node_data(__type, (__prev)->__field.prev, __field)) -- 2.30.2