> > ok so this brings the question: how does naming it DRM_ARRAY_SIZE make > it more portable than naming it ARRAY_SIZE? > If *BSD doesn't have ARRAY_SIZE, then surely naming it ARRAY_SIZE is > easy for them to provide (after all they need to provide it already just > called DRM_ARRAY_SIZE); if they have ARRAY_SIZE... then I assume it has > the exact same semantics.... >
Yes I've heard this argument before, and it works for ARRAY_SIZE, but I'm not sure it'll be okay for all macros we use, the other thing is I've no idea what BSD or Solaris have or don't have, so if we just DRM_ most things it makes it less likely we'll have a namespace clash later on ... I'm not really caring either way though, I prefer to leave it as is unless someone comes up with a really good reason as I'm lazy by nature, and I don't think it really affects anyone either way... there are a lot worse things in the drm that need looking at on my list before I start worrying about naming macros... Dave. -- David Airlie, Software Engineer http://www.skynet.ie/~airlied / airlied at skynet.ie Linux kernel - DRI, VAX / pam_smb / ILUG ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
