<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8"> <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.26.0"> </HEAD> <BODY> On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 09:39 -0700, Jamey Sharp wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <PRE> Yay, go Arnaud! On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Arnaud Fontaine <<A HREF="mailto:arnaud@andesi.org">arnaud@andesi.org</A>> wrote: > I have almost finished to split up xcb-util repositories (finally...). I > have prepared  patches for xorg-util-macros[0][1], if the  new M4 macros > are  not general  enough to  be part  of xorg-util-macros,  I  will just > create a  Git submodule for  them. > > [0] <A HREF="http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~arnau/xorg-util-macros/commit/?id=28c561b3dd5729ffa511cfb3727dfff36477d80a">http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~arnau/xorg-util-macros/commit/?id=28c561b3dd5729ffa511cfb3727dfff36477d80a</A> > [1] <A HREF="http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~arnau/xorg-util-macros/commit/?id=309b691da4d7a3c7e72f1b8a71c1fc18a7039cea">http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~arnau/xorg-util-macros/commit/?id=309b691da4d7a3c7e72f1b8a71c1fc18a7039cea</A> Gaetan Nadon seems to have become de-facto maintainer of xorg-util-macros, so CC'd. Gaetan, could you review these two macros? Thanks... </PRE> </BLOCKQUOTE> Sure. I am a bit out of context. I'll spend some time looking around. In the mean tine, consider the strict backward compatibility restrictions of putting a macro in utils-macros package. The first libraries you ship with it are expected to build fine with all future versions of the macros, for decades. Any changes you make in the macros are expected not to break the very first library shipped. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <PRE> > Also, I call XORG_STRICT_VERSION which in turns call AC_PROG_CC_C99, any > problem with that? I guess you mean XORG_STRICT_OPTION? If X.Org can get away with requiring C99 compilers, then I'm certainly happy to go along. Except that libX11, for example, calls XORG_DEFAULT_OPTIONS which includes XORG_STRICT_OPTION, but then later it calls AC_PROG_CC, and from the comments in xorg-macros.m4 I guess that means libX11 is only asking for C89? Perhaps the XCB utility libraries should do the same unless they depend on C99 features. Maybe you can explain this to us, Gaetan? </PRE> </BLOCKQUOTE> The packages (about 240 of them) used the AC_PROG_CC macro to setup the compiler environment (in config.log look for CC='gcc'). Later the XORG_STRICT_OPTION was added and called from XORG_DEFAULT_OPTIONS, but most of the time it gets overridden by AC_PROG_CC. If not, you see CC='gcc -std=gnu99' in the log. If you grep all config.log, about half the packages have one and half have the other. Very consistent :-) I am in the process of removing AC_PROG_CC. I don't recall hearing about any issues with this. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <PRE> Jamey </PRE> </BLOCKQUOTE> </BODY> </HTML>