On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 06:50:27AM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Keith Packard <[email protected]> wrote: > > Argh! A recent commit to the xf86 config parsing code added "list.h" to > > xf86Parser.h, which is included by drivers to look stuff up. Because of > > this, the intel driver no longer builds against master (would that the > > drivers were in the server tree...). I have an RC1 tar file sitting here > > and decided that I really should be running those bits before pushing it > > out, and I really think I should at least try running it first. > > > > To my mind, list.h really isn't needed in xf86Parser -- list elements > > are only ever added to the head and then the whole list freed at once. > > > > Here's an open coded replacement; shorter and has no casts. > > I want to use nice macros like list_for_each_entry. Why _wouldn't_ I > use the generic one from list.h? Isn't that the entire reason why > list.h was added? Sure, this is a simple singly-linked list, but the > point is that I don't want to open code it again. Why was list.h added > if not to use the thing?
This man speaks for me.
Cheers,
Daniel
PS: If familiarity is the problem, then removing usage isn't going to
fix anything, only, er, make it worse.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
