Solaris & [PATCH libdrm 1/2] configure.ac: split -fvisibility and __attribute__((visibility)) checks

2015-04-06 Thread Niveditha Rau
On 04/05/15 11:33, randyf at sibernet.com wrote: > > > On Sun, 5 Apr 2015, Emil Velikov wrote: > >>> Note that the move of KMS drivers to this repo is recent, so there >>> is little >>> history of their evolution. >>> >> Right, so things are a few newer than I thought, but still a bit off >> from

Solaris & [PATCH libdrm 1/2] configure.ac: split -fvisibility and __attribute__((visibility)) checks

2015-04-05 Thread Emil Velikov
On 1 April 2015 at 15:42, wrote: > > Sorry, went to drafts and not to send... > - The struct drm_map/drmMapBufs/drmRmMap is part of the legacy drm cruft for which, I would like to think, there are no more users. Obviously the latter can be confirmed by Randy and friends. >>> >

Solaris & [PATCH libdrm 1/2] configure.ac: split -fvisibility and __attribute__((visibility)) checks

2015-04-05 Thread ran...@sibernet.com
On Sun, 5 Apr 2015, Emil Velikov wrote: >> Note that the move of KMS drivers to this repo is recent, so there is little >> history of their evolution. >> > Right, so things are a few newer than I thought, but still a bit off > from upstream drm. Not too shocking though considering the amount of

Solaris & [PATCH libdrm 1/2] configure.ac: split -fvisibility and __attribute__((visibility)) checks

2015-04-01 Thread ran...@sibernet.com
Sorry, went to drafts and not to send... >>> - The struct drm_map/drmMapBufs/drmRmMap is part of the legacy drm >>> cruft for which, I would like to think, there are no more users. >>> >>> Obviously the latter can be confirmed by Randy and friends. >> >> I'm somewhat confused by this statement,

Solaris & [PATCH libdrm 1/2] configure.ac: split -fvisibility and __attribute__((visibility)) checks

2015-03-26 Thread Emil Velikov
Hello Randy On 26/03/15 16:56, randyf at sibernet.com wrote: >> >> Was honestly hoping that patch #1 is not required as: >> - Getting the drm.h header in sync with the kernel will be annoying. > > Indeed. > > I have a version of drm.h that works with Solaris and *should* still > work with al

Solaris & [PATCH libdrm 1/2] configure.ac: split -fvisibility and __attribute__((visibility)) checks

2015-03-26 Thread Emil Velikov
On 23/03/15 01:46, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > On 03/ 9/15 05:37 AM, Emil Velikov wrote: >> The former does not imply the latter and vice-versa. One such example is >> the Sun compiler. >> >> Cc: Alan Coopersmith >> Cc: Thierry Reding >> Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov >> --- >> >> Hi Alan, >> Can you

Solaris & [PATCH libdrm 1/2] configure.ac: split -fvisibility and __attribute__((visibility)) checks

2015-03-26 Thread ran...@sibernet.com
> > Was honestly hoping that patch #1 is not required as: > - Getting the drm.h header in sync with the kernel will be annoying. Indeed. I have a version of drm.h that works with Solaris and *should* still work with all other consumers, but as I still have a ways to get fully to speed, am

Solaris & [PATCH libdrm 1/2] configure.ac: split -fvisibility and __attribute__((visibility)) checks

2015-03-22 Thread Alan Coopersmith
On 03/ 9/15 05:37 AM, Emil Velikov wrote: > The former does not imply the latter and vice-versa. One such example is > the Sun compiler. > > Cc: Alan Coopersmith > Cc: Thierry Reding > Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov > --- > > Hi Alan, > Can you please take a look it this series covers the symbol