On 06/07/2015 23:08, Keith Packard wrote:
Jon TURNEY writes:
On 04/07/2015 05:21, Ray Strode wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Jon TURNEY wrote:
Makes sense. Revised patch attached.
LGTM
I'm going to choose to assume that is a Reviewed-by:
Keith,
Please consider applying to master.
I liked your first version a lot better; looks a lot simpler. An
autoconf test might make sense if there was some reason to override it?
I'm ambivalent.
The first version has the virtue of simplicity, but doing the test at
effectively a random point in a header leaves things open to the same
problem (of a check preceding the definition) occurring again, although
given how rarely this piece of code is changed, the likelihood of that
seems low.
Please consider picking a version you like and applying it, or let me
know how I can make this patch acceptable.
_______________________________________________
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
