Jose Fonseca <[email protected]> writes: > On 03/02/15 20:08, Francisco Jerez wrote: >> Francisco Jerez <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> Francisco Jerez <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>>> Brian Paul <[email protected]> writes: >>>> >>>>> MSVC doesn't seem to like function calls inside struct initializers. >>>> >>>> That's awful. But fine: >>>> Reviewed-by: Francisco Jerez <[email protected]> >>>> >>> Actually it's surprising that you got it to build with so few changes. >>> I'd expect you to find *many* more function calls inside struct >>> initializers. Does it actually work with this change or did you forget >>> to include some files? >>> >> >> Brian, if that's the case don't bother to fix all the function calls in >> struct initalizers, just let me know, I'd like to try a less intrusive >> solution. > > If this was C++ we could use C++ constructors. In fact, the code could > be substantially simplified. > > I think we should make more use of C++ in piglit. MSVC C++ support is > far more polished than it's C support. But above all, C++ features like > classes and templates could save a lot of hand typing. > > Jose
Yes, you're probably right. Actually except for the implicit void pointer conversions it might be possible to get these tests to compile as C++ source with just minor changes, MSVC would likely be more forgiving with that.
pgpVRj4Y42YB9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
