This patch was created with:
git ls-files '*.[ch]' | while read f; do unifdef -B -DRENDER -o $f $f; done
Signed-off-by: Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com
---
Xext/panoramiX.c |6 --
Xext/panoramiX.h |2 --
exa/exa.c
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:53:32 -0700, Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote:
This patch was created with:
git ls-files '*.[ch]' | while read f; do unifdef -B -DRENDER -o $f $f;
done
This is not an actual proposal to apply this patch, I just wanted to
start discussion on what we could do if
Keith Packard wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:53:32 -0700, Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote:
This patch was created with:
git ls-files '*.[ch]' | while read f; do unifdef -B -DRENDER -o $f $f;
done
This is not an actual proposal to apply this patch, I just wanted to
start discussion on
I almost asked about why we still had #ifdef RENDER when seeing the discussion
on Tiago's patches last week, I'm not sure if there's any point in keeping the
#ifdefs any more.
diff --git a/hw/vfb/InitOutput.c b/hw/vfb/InitOutput.c
index e7dd1d9..0428f0a 100644
--- a/hw/vfb/InitOutput.c
+++
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:27:11 -0700
From: Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com
I almost asked about why we still had #ifdef RENDER when seeing the
discussion on Tiago's patches last week, I'm not sure if there's any
point in keeping the #ifdefs any more.
I believe almost no
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:00:39 +0300, Tiago Vignatti vigna...@freedesktop.org
wrote:
But if we go for it, we're going have an implementation that exceeds
the protocol. Is that valid?
Sure, there's nothing saying that we have to be able to not provide
certain extensions in the sample
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:27:11 -0700, Alan Coopersmith
alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote:
Not really part of the unifdef patch, but a second patch to do s/of/off/ in
that
message would be good.
Yeah, as you can imagine, any patch that changes as much as the RENDER
stuff should be entirely
Keith Packard wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:00:39 +0300, Tiago Vignatti vigna...@freedesktop.org
wrote:
But if we go for it, we're going have an implementation that exceeds
the protocol. Is that valid?
Sure, there's nothing saying that we have to be able to not provide
certain
