2015-06-20 9:04 GMT+08:00 Chih-Wei Huang <cwhu...@android-x86.org>: > 2015-06-20 3:12 GMT+08:00 Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com>: >> Hi Chih-Wei, >> On 19 June 2015 at 19:00, Chih-Wei Huang <cwhu...@android-x86.org> wrote: > >>> diff --git a/Android.common.mk b/Android.common.mk >>> index d662d60..35dcda2 100644 >>> --- a/Android.common.mk >>> +++ b/Android.common.mk >>> @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ LOCAL_CFLAGS += \ >>> endif >>> >>> LOCAL_CPPFLAGS += \ >>> - $(if $(filter true,$(MESA_LOLLIPOP_BUILD)),-D_USING_LIBCXX) \ >>> + $(if $(filter true,$(MESA_LOLLIPOP_BUILD)),-std=c++11) \ >> Please expand like elsewhere in the build. Additionally this is a C++ >> only flag, so LOCAL_CPPFLAGS does not sound like the right place. >> Shame that the Android folk did not like (f'd up) the standard >> CXXFLAGS. > > Seems you misread it. > LOCAL_CPPFLAGS is the C++ only flag. > >> ifeq ....MESA_LOLLIPOP_BUILD... >> LOCAL_C??FLAGS += \ >> -std=c++11 >> endif > > Personally I like the compact format. > But if you prefer the style, I can update it.
After re-thinking the style, I hope to keep as it is. Actually the style is already accepted in my last patch. This patch only changed the unused -D_USING_LIBCXX to more appropriate -std=c++11. I consider the $(if ) operator of makefile to be analogous to ? : operator of C/C++. I know some people dislike ? : operator, but most programmers won't reject it since it make the code more elegant. I also see the ? : operator is used in Mesa's code extensively. In short, I think the patch is good and no plan to update it. Could you merge it? -- Chih-Wei Android-x86 project http://www.android-x86.org _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev