[PATCH v2 libdrm 1/7] configure: Support symbol visibility when available
kusmabite at gmail.com
Fri May 2 07:59:19 PDT 2014
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 07:15:14PM +0200, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > diff --git a/libdrm.h b/libdrm.h
>> > new file mode 100644
>> > index 000000000000..23926e6f6741
>> > --- /dev/null
>> > +++ b/libdrm.h
>> > @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
>> > +/*
>> > + * Copyright © 2014 NVIDIA Corporation
>> > + *
>> > + * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
>> > + * copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"),
>> > + * to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation
>> > + * the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense,
>> > + * and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the
>> > + * Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
>> > + *
>> > + * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
>> > + * all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
>> > + *
>> > + * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
>> > + * IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
>> > + * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL
>> > + * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S) OR AUTHOR(S) BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR
>> > + * OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
>> > + * ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
>> > + * OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
>> > + */
>> > +
>> > +#ifndef LIBDRM_LIBDRM_H
>> > +#define LIBDRM_LIBDRM_H
>> LIBDRM_LIBDRM_H sounds a bit clunky to me. Why LIBDRM twice? The other
>> headers don't seem to prefix LIBDRM_ to their header-guards. In fact,
>> many of them don't even have header-guards.
> This was with the intention of marking it as an internal header file. So
> the LIBDRM_ prefix could be used consistently for all files that are not
> installed. xf86atomic.h uses that prefix as well.
If you look at the history of xf86atomic.h, it seems this strange
header-guard is the result of a slightly careless replace. It used to
be called intel_atomics.h, and have INTEL_ATOMICS_H as the
header-guard. So I wouldn't lake that set too much of a precedence.
>> Also, does these macro really warrant making a top-level, generically
>> named header?
> There isn't really another header file where this would fit. Others are
> either installed (and therefore shouldn't be exposing these macros) or
> have a very specific purpose (xf86atomic.h).
I guess this is a matter of taste, and it would be great with some
input from the other libdrm-people on this. I don't care too much
More information about the dri-devel