Quoting Ville Syrj?l? ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 11:26:44AM +0800, Bom Luzares-Daplas wrote: > > Actually, I'm more concerned about maintaining compatibility. For instance, > > what if you decided to upgrade again, like return a timestamp, or the > > number of vsyncs > > that occurred since the last one, etc? You won't be able to pass multiple > > integers. > > However, if you started passing by reference from the very start, > > compatibility will be > > maintained. All you need to do is add new structure members at the bottom, > > and the > > user access macros will act as your 'switch'. Something like this: > > I see your point. I don't mind keeping the current patch and modifying > DirectFB to pass the address instead of the value. In fact since the > current patch/DirectFB combination doesn't work anyway it might be the > best course of action. That way anyone switching to a new DirectFB release > will get working vsync even if they have patched their kernel with an old > patch. But the decision isn't really up to me... Dok what do you think?
Passing a pointer to the value is the right way. We are going to release 0.9.15 very soon. -- Best regards, Denis Oliver Kropp .------------------------------------------. | DirectFB - Hardware accelerated graphics | | http://www.directfb.org/ | "------------------------------------------" Convergence GmbH -- Info: To unsubscribe send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe directfb-dev" as subject.
