Re: [perl #53430] [PATCH] Concat call_list.txt from fragments in config step

2008-05-06 Thread Geoffrey Broadwell
On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 08:44 -0700, Geoffrey Broadwell wrote: I'm not wedded to splitting them up as much as I did. In fact, I'd be fine with core.in, opengl.in, and misc.in. Better for you? chromatic confirmed on IRC that this was his preference, saying also that this arrangement solves

Re: [perl #53430] [PATCH] Concat call_list.txt from fragments in config step

2008-05-06 Thread chromatic
On Tuesday 06 May 2008 19:26:46 Geoffrey Broadwell wrote: On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 08:44 -0700, Geoffrey Broadwell wrote: I'm not wedded to splitting them up as much as I did. In fact, I'd be fine with core.in, opengl.in, and misc.in. Better for you? chromatic confirmed on IRC that this

Re: [perl #53430] [PATCH] Concat call_list.txt from fragments in config step

2008-04-28 Thread chromatic
On Sunday 27 April 2008 17:04:10 Geoffrey Broadwell wrote: Currently, src/call_list.txt is a static file; any time new NCI signatures are needed, it is edited manually. For very large APIs with many unique signatures that may vary from platform to platform (OpenGL), this is suboptimal.

Re: [perl #53430] [PATCH] Concat call_list.txt from fragments in config step

2008-04-28 Thread Geoffrey Broadwell
On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 00:30 -0700, chromatic wrote: I'm somewhat unconvinced, in general. For the OpenGL bindings, where the build process has to build specific C code which links against specific libraries, I can mostly see the point. For other bindings where it's possible to build