On 25 January 2018 at 02:01, Jonas Ådahl <jad...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 07:15:09PM +0000, Emil Velikov wrote: >> On 24 January 2018 at 18:20, Derek Foreman <der...@osg.samsung.com> wrote: >> > On 2018-01-22 09:30 AM, Emil Velikov wrote: >> >> >> >> On 22 August 2017 at 14:02, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On 18 August 2017 at 13:05, Pekka Paalanen <ppaala...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> The exported configuration would then be: >> >>>>>> LOCAL_INTERFACE_DECL=extern >> >>>>>> EXTERN_INTERFACE_DECL=extern >> >>>>>> LOCAL_INTERFACE_DEF=WL_EXPORT >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> That would be far too flexible and no-one would use it right, right? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> I did not introduce separate tokens, since those are (and should be) >> >>>>> used _only_ in the .c file. >> >>>>> Personally then do not seem necessary, If you prefer we can add them >> >>>>> though. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Ah, no, that was just a wild idea of something completely different. I >> >>>> meant that the user project would be setting those macros before using >> >>>> scanner-generated files, and if unset, the scanner-emitted code would >> >>>> default to the legacy behaviour. That way there would be no visibility >> >>>> modes in scanner itself. If it's not obviously better, then nevermind. >> >>>> It certainly has a lot more room to go wrong than your proposal. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> I see. >> >>> >> >>> Personally I'd lean towards with my approach for now since it is >> >>> simpler, despite that it provides less flexibility. >> >>> As you pointed out the proposal is a bit more fragile, so might be >> >>> better to avoid until there's a real need for it. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> ... >> >>>> >> >>>>>> The patch looks pretty much correct to me, if we choose to go this >> >>>>>> way. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> Glad to hear. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I'll let me know once you guys are settled in on the approach, and >> >>>>> I'll respin the series with all the comments addressed. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Cool, let's see if we can get the name conflict issue solved, and then >> >>>> I'll try to remember to ping you. >> >>>> >> >>> Ack, I'll keep an eye open, just in case. >> >>> >> >> Considering the status of the the name conflict series, should I >> >> re-spin this lot? >> >> I'm more than happy to tweak things - say rename the toggle, etc. >> > >> > >> > I see there were two series proposed to control symbol visibility, yours >> > and >> > Jonas'? >> > >> > Assuming that once we drop the symbol collision issue they both solve the >> > same problems, it would be good if we could focus on one going forward. >> > >> > Is this the chosen one? >> > >> Right, the cover letter [1] covers some of the high-lights/differences. >> As a TL;DR: using static/shared is more common and gives us more >> flexibility for the future. >> >> So far Pekka is the only person who commented on the series/approach >> and seemed happy. >> I was expecting others to weight in - say Jonas ;-) I'll respin the >> series tomorrow. >> >> In hindsight --object-type={shared,static} is too much of a mouthful, >> I'll opt for --{static,shared} for v2. > > I have no opinion of what variant to land (I'm slightly too lazy to > search for my own, and this is high up the inbox thanks to the replies, > so lets focus on this one). > > My only nit is using the term "object-type". I think refering to it as > "visibility" ("symbol visibility" if wanting to be extra verbose) where > one can say 'export', 'static' or 'private' is more accurate. > > "objects" are a Wayland protocol thing and that is not what we are > poking at here. > Right using "object" might be misleading. On the other hand, --shared/--static are well known and dead-obvious. Plus it gives us flexibility to sweep more things under it, if we get some funky stuff in the future.
Can I buy you on the different name? Emil _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel