Re: [XFree86] XFree86 4.3.x: ValueUnion and loaded variable names

2004-02-20 Thread Kelledin
on alpha.gnu.org. -- Kelledin If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does it still cost four figures to fix? ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [XFree86] XFree86 4.3.x: ValueUnion and loaded variable names

2004-02-20 Thread Kelledin
, put the #undef bool at the end, as it was in 5.3) -- Kelledin If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does it still cost four figures to fix? ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [XFree86] XFree86 4.3.x: ValueUnion and loaded variable names

2004-02-19 Thread Kelledin
make the case there. If we decide to go that route, we'd also have to make sure the relevant parts of XFree86 compile with gcc -ansi. Then this problem might go away entirely, except for not-so-recent gcc compilers. -- Kelledin If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does

Re: [XFree86] XFree86 4.3.x: ValueUnion and loaded variable names

2004-02-19 Thread Kelledin
On Thursday 19 February 2004 06:07 pm, Kelledin wrote: We might possibly have gcc skip the offending stdbool.h contents whenever __STRICT_ANSI__ is defined. I would consider that fairly proper myself, as this is exactly what gcc -ansi is supposed to address. I'll run off to the gcc devs

[XFree86] XFree86 4.3.x: ValueUnion and loaded variable names

2004-02-18 Thread Kelledin
) for the current 4.3.0 branch, and implement (3) for 4.4.0 or some later release where a driver API break is marginally acceptable. Anything besides (3) should just be treated as a temporary stopgap measure, as otherwise we'd just be digging ourselves deeper into the same hole. -- Kelledin