Re: [Intel-gfx] [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 1/2] tests/testdisplay: Explicitly use GLIB_CFLAGS

2018-02-27 Thread Arkadiusz Hiler 
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 03:38:58PM +0200, Petri Latvala wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 12:56:10PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > From: Thierry Reding 
> > 
> > testdisplay.h includes the glib.h header file but the Makefile does not
> > explicitly pass a -I option with the path containing that header, hence
> > causing the build to fail. Note that this doesn't seem to happen with a
> > recent enough version of cairo, which implicitly provides the correct
> > -I option.
> 
> 
> Hmm. We only have GLIB_CFLAGS when HAVE_GLIB, but testdisplay is
> always built. Same for intel_dp_compliance.
> 
> Should we make glib mandatory as well? Arek, thoughts?

Yep, making sounds good. It's extremely common and we use it also for
the igtrc handling.

This allows us to remove quite a few more ifdefs and will make couple of
pending reworks easier :-)

- Arek
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 1/2] tests/testdisplay: Explicitly use GLIB_CFLAGS

2018-02-27 Thread Petri Latvala 
On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 12:56:10PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> From: Thierry Reding 
> 
> testdisplay.h includes the glib.h header file but the Makefile does not
> explicitly pass a -I option with the path containing that header, hence
> causing the build to fail. Note that this doesn't seem to happen with a
> recent enough version of cairo, which implicitly provides the correct
> -I option.


Hmm. We only have GLIB_CFLAGS when HAVE_GLIB, but testdisplay is
always built. Same for intel_dp_compliance.

Should we make glib mandatory as well? Arek, thoughts?


-- 
Petri Latvala
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx