Em Ter, 2017-02-21 às 14:26 +0200, Ander Conselvan De Oliveira
escreveu:
> On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 17:00 -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> >
> > Possible problems of the current if-ladder:
> > - It's a huge if ladder with almost a different check for each of
> > our platforms.
> > - It mixes 3
Em Ter, 2017-02-21 às 13:51 +0200, Ville Syrjälä escreveu:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 05:00:42PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> >
> > Possible problems of the current if-ladder:
> > - It's a huge if ladder with almost a different check for each of
> > our platforms.
> > - It mixes 3
On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 17:00 -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> Possible problems of the current if-ladder:
> - It's a huge if ladder with almost a different check for each of
> our platforms.
> - It mixes 3 different types of checks: IS_GENX, IS_PLATFORM and
> IS_GROUP_OF_PLATFORMS.
> - As
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 05:00:42PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> Possible problems of the current if-ladder:
> - It's a huge if ladder with almost a different check for each of
> our platforms.
> - It mixes 3 different types of checks: IS_GENX, IS_PLATFORM and
> IS_GROUP_OF_PLATFORMS.
>
Possible problems of the current if-ladder:
- It's a huge if ladder with almost a different check for each of
our platforms.
- It mixes 3 different types of checks: IS_GENX, IS_PLATFORM and
IS_GROUP_OF_PLATFORMS.
- As demonstrated by the recent IS_G4X commit, it's not easy to be
