Re: [Gegl-developer] babl portability patches, and a test failure

2009-03-09 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
Hi Sven,

On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 08:56:59PM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
 On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 23:27 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
 
  attached is a patch for babl_log. I am not too happy with the outcome as
  it will result in less informative log output on platforms that don't
  support variadic macros. But I guess that's somewhat hard to avoid and
  hopefully the most important platforms will support this feature. I'd
  appreciate feedback on this patch.
 
 Gary, I exptected some feedback, but didn't hear from you. Are you not
 any longer interested to get the babl portability problems solved?

Sorry, I've been offline for the last week (moving from Thailand to
New Zealand).

I've split apart my patches, and ported them to today's git master
branch, and am in the process of uploading them to bugzilla.gnome.org.

Cheers,
Gary
-- 
Gary V. Vaughan (g...@thewrittenword.com)
___
Gegl-developer mailing list
Gegl-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gegl-developer


Re: [Gegl-developer] babl portability patches, and a test failure

2009-02-26 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
Hi Sven,

Thanks for following up on this.

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:27:22PM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
 attached is a patch for babl_log. I am not too happy with the outcome as
 it will result in less informative log output on platforms that don't
 support variadic macros. But I guess that's somewhat hard to avoid and
 hopefully the most important platforms will support this feature. I'd
 appreciate feedback on this patch.

I also ported glibs variadic macro detection into babl, and gegl, while
splitting up my original sumo-patch to port forward to the SVN
HEAD(s).  Unfortunately, it still doesn't work quite right on our
older machines as is, but I'll upload the fully ported and tested
version (along with my other patches) to GNOME's bugzilla after
the weekend.

Please consider waiting until you've seen that patch before you commit
anything.

Cheers,
Gary
-- 
Gary V. Vaughan (g...@thewrittenword.com)
___
Gegl-developer mailing list
Gegl-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gegl-developer


Re: [Gegl-developer] babl portability patches, and a test failure

2009-02-26 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
Hi Sven,

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 10:19:50PM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
 On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 03:22 +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
 
 * for gnulib and autoconf to work properly, every .c file
   needs to #include config.h before anything else!
   
   Yes, definitely!
  
  And I even kept that in a separate patch! :)
 
 I have committed that part to trunk now. Actually, I changed it to
 include config.h as that's more correct than config.h. After all we
 are not including a system header here but a local one.

In this case, that's not the best thing to do (witness the contents of
gnulib as an example).  Here's the relevant reasoning from the autoconf
info manual:

   To provide for VPATH builds, remember to pass the C compiler a `-I.'
option (or `-I..'; whichever directory contains `config.h').  Even if
you use `#include config.h', the preprocessor searches only the
directory of the currently read file, i.e., the source directory, not
the build directory.

   With the appropriate `-I' option, you can use `#include config.h'.
Actually, it's a good habit to use it, because in the rare case when
the source directory contains another `config.h', the build directory
should be searched first.

I actually tripped over that very error while testing srcdir!=builddir
(aka VPATH) builds with my patches.
 
Cheers,
Gary
-- 
Gary V. Vaughan (g...@thewrittenword.com)
___
Gegl-developer mailing list
Gegl-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gegl-developer


Re: [Gegl-developer] babl portability patches, and a test failure

2009-02-24 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi,

On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 03:22 +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:

* for gnulib and autoconf to work properly, every .c file
  needs to #include config.h before anything else!
  
  Yes, definitely!
 
 And I even kept that in a separate patch! :)

I have committed that part to trunk now. Actually, I changed it to
include config.h as that's more correct than config.h. After all we
are not including a system header here but a local one.


Sven


___
Gegl-developer mailing list
Gegl-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gegl-developer