intel driver will only compile with gcc
dnusinow at speakeasy.net
Sat Jun 9 07:01:47 PDT 2007
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 10:59:47AM -0700, Kean Johnston wrote:
> > Can I lobby to have "permission" for variadic macros removed from
> > that document (which, incidently, only lives in the git tree it seems
> > as it was not in my xorg 1.2.0 source tarball).
> Now that I read it more closely, that whole section is "bogus". Nothing
> else in the code (at least not that is activated by a non-C99
> compiler) is using named initializers either. That section is a bad
> idea no matter how you slice it. Neither of those two "mandatory"
> extensions really buy you very much except for a tiny bit of readability
> at the expense of cutting out a whole slew of compilers. Can that whole
> section simply be removed?
The section of the code that defines the default set of modules to be
loaded uses named initializers. See commit
e91b9ddc7aa95abc2d4d314e8db204860771a099. The rationale for this is that it
makes it very easy to change the default set to whatever the user wants.
Named initializers are very nice, and I'd personally like to keep them.
- David Nusinow
More information about the xorg