On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 04:43:47PM +0200, ext Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Tiago Vignatti wrote:
> >
> > Reviewing your proposal made me think if we really need devPrivates
> > mechanism
> > at all.
> >
> > It only exists to not change ABI all the time on data structures. But hey,
> > is
> > this a _real_ problem? I mean, for who cares about ABI, we have a way to
> > track
> > the control changes just going to xf86Module.h and bumping ABI_*.
>
> You'd prefer having all the structures allocate space for extensions that may
> not be enabled (either at runtime or at compile time)? And having to
> recompile
> everything every time an extension needs to add a new member?
yes. yes.
And when extensions are not used then would be just nil pointers in those
structures, which doesn't cost much.
> Because having the ABI depend on #ifdefs of whether the server was compiled
> with
> DRI2 or XF86DGA is effectively having no ABI at all, and killing the ability
> to
> provide driver binaries, whether closed source like nvidia, or open source
> like
> the vmware & virtual box guest drivers they include in their guest additions
> kits.
it wouldn't kill the ability of provide binaries. Would difficult though.
And you totally ignored my readability argument, which you know counts a lot
in terms of development.
Tiago
_______________________________________________
[email protected]: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
