> > >> Drop the includes altogether, and forward declare the needed symbols. >
But then you end up with forward declarations of symbols that may not even exist. > > Why not use the configure.ac-based approach suggested by Chuck? > > Few reasons come to mind: > > Not to mention that every user will need a check analogous to the one > in configure.ac. > There's already extra -D requirements that get pushed into the generated .pc files. It will get populated by the @GL_PC_CFLAGS@ configure variable. A consumer wouldn't need to know how to check for GLX enablement, just use the flags they're given. I don't particularly like arbitrarily adding -D flags either though so I get where you're coming from. Typically these sorts of things would get pushed into a config.h.in generated at configure time and installed with the rest of the headers but it seems silly to do add a conf header like that when there's not one already for just this change.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
