On 4 November 2012 09:55, Eric Anholt <[email protected]> wrote: > Kenneth Graunke <[email protected]> writes: > > > On 11/02/2012 05:13 PM, Ian Romanick wrote: > >> On 11/02/2012 03:01 PM, Paul Berry wrote: > >>> On 2 November 2012 14:11, Ian Romanick <[email protected] > >>> Oh yuck! Why not just fix the names of the Mesa functions? That > >>> seems much better than carrying the work-around in the code > >>> generator forever. > >>> > >>> > >>> The reason I shied away from this approach is that there are a lot of > >>> functions to fix (146 of them by my count), and I was worried it would > >>> take a very long time to rename all references to them. > >> > >> That many? Ugh. Is it possible to switch the aliasing order? For the > >> IsProgram case, IsProgramNV would alias IsProgramARB (instead of the > >> other way around). Is that better or worse? > >> > >>> But I didn't actually try it. I'll try spending a few hours on it and > >>> see how far I get. > > > > FWIW, I would like to see Mesa use the core names. IsProgramNV is > > particularly odd because we don't support the extension it came > > from...the name IsProgramARB makes a lot more sense. > > Seconding this. >
Ok, by popular demand I'm doing a patch to make all the naming consistent. It actually wasn't that difficult--just a lot of scripting. To avoid a rebasing nightmare, I'm going to let this patch series land as is, and then send out a patch for review that does the renaming. I should be able to get that out by the end of the day. That means we'll have to leave the "mesa_name" ugliness in for now, but we'll be able to remove it again in a few days.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
