On Sat, 2014-10-18 at 18:41 +0200, Kalrish Bäakjen wrote: > If I understood it right, Dmitry, you are working on an EGL > implementation > that should dynamically detect the type of the object passed to > eglGetDisplay. Mesa already does that, but it is ugly and just a > hack that > should be avoided. eglGetDisplay was not designed to support multiple > platforms, hence why the EGL_EXT_platform_base[1] extension was > conceived. > Consider implementing and switching to it - which, by the way, is > part of > EGL 1.5. > Interesting. I'm currently unable to build webkit-gtk with X+wayland support against current wayland/mesa because it attempts to do something like this.
> 1: > https://www.khronos.org/registry/egl/extensions/EXT/EGL_EXT_platform_base.txt > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Bill Spitzak <spit...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On 10/16/2014 11:16 PM, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > > > > ...adding a function int/bool wl_is_wl_display_pointer(void *p) > > into > > > libwayland-client.so. As that function would be built into > > > libwayland-client.so, it naturally uses the client.so version of > > > wl_display_interface symbol (unless dynamic linking miraculously > > > manages to mess that up?). > > > > > > 'p' would be the tentative 'struct wl_display *', so that the > > > implementation details of struct wl_display would be contained in > > > libwayland-client.so, and not leaked elsewhere like e.g. in Mesa. > > > > > > > Might be better if the function was more like a cast. It returns > > either > > (wl_display*)p or NULL depending on the test. The reason is so the > > user can > > just assign it to a correct pointer without doing the cast > > themselves. This > > might be important if more of these casts are added in the future, > > it makes > > it harder to accidentally run the wrong test for the cast you want > > to do: > > > > struct wl_display* wl_display_dynamic_cast (void* p) { > > if (test(p)) return (struct wl_display*)p; > > else return 0; > > } > > > > I am unsure about the exact definition of > > wl_is_wl_display_pointer(): > > > can it do the dereferencability check itself, or should we > > > require the > > > caller to guarantee that dereferencing cannot crash. The latter > > > would > > > leave the portability burden on the callers rather than > > > libwayland. > > > > > > > Probably it should handle NULL. > > > > Maybe it should check alignment if wl_display has stricter > > alignment > > restrictions than some other plausable arguments. > > > > It does not seem to me that a check for pointing to valid memory is > > necessary. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > wayland-devel mailing list > > wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel > > > _______________________________________________ > wayland-devel mailing list > wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
