On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 02:36:21PM -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
> I suppose that it is doable, but it just seems wrong. Doesn't this just
> boil down to inheritance by conincidence? Expecting each driver to
> duplicate the same data structures and add their unique data onto the
> end, without any checking done by the compiler, seems like a bad call.
> If we going to do that, I would rather see it done as either a nested
> structure (like driTextureObject) or as a macro:
>
> #define DRI_TEXTURE \
> int baseval;
>
> struct radeontexture {
> DRI_TEXTURE
> int radeonextraval;
> };
Yes, I was going to suggest that if the topic of typos, etc came up :->
PS:
#define DRI_TEXTURE_STRUCTINFO \
or some such.
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Etnus, makers of TotalView, The debugger
for complex code. Debugging C/C++ programs can leave you feeling lost and
disoriented. TotalView can help you find your way. Available on major UNIX
and Linux platforms. Try it free. www.etnus.com
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
