On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 03:34:04PM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 06:23:09PM -0200, Paulo C?sar Pereira de Andrade
> wrote:
> > The patch as a whole may not be required to apply, and not
> > that patch "verbatim", as it would require still at least a
> > review to ensure e
Thomas Dickey wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 06:23:09PM -0200, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
> wrote:
>> The patch as a whole may not be required to apply, and not
>> that patch "verbatim", as it would require still at least a
>> review to ensure every sdk header "passes" the:
>> ifdef HAVE_FO
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 06:23:09PM -0200, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade wrote:
> The patch as a whole may not be required to apply, and not
> that patch "verbatim", as it would require still at least a
> review to ensure every sdk header "passes" the:
> ifdef HAVE_FOO_CONFIG_H
> #include
> #end
Eric Anholt wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The attached patch is the result of "as few extra
>> inclusions as possible", by creating a dummy file
>> including just that header, and making it compile.
>> This was done in the loader directory, and I added
>> some extra -I for module headers, but including in
On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 04:45 -0200, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The attached patch is the result of "as few extra
> inclusions as possible", by creating a dummy file
> including just that header, and making it compile.
> This was done in the loader directory, and I added
> som
aulo
>From cfb29abf144380a45eefd03fa5a80fa5c19cfe84 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paulo Cesar Pereira de Andrade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 04:02:44 -0200
Subject: [PATCH] Include sdk header dependencies and protect agains't multiple inclusion.
---
Xext/geext.h|
