[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 2/2] intel: add ANGLE_texture_compression_dxt extension support.

[Brian Paul]

On 09/05/2012 03:38 AM, Oliver McFadden wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 12:41:12PM -0600, Brian Paul wrote:
>> On 09/04/2012 12:08 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
>>> On 09/04/2012 08:16 AM, Brian Paul wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Most of the patch is 'FEATURE_x' changes. I've been tempted to rip out
>>>> all that stuff.
>>>>
>>>> The original idea was to make it easy for people to build smaller Mesa
>>>> subsets (and the ES subset) by running the code through the
>>>> preprocessor
>>>> with all the FEATURE_x flags set on/off as needed. In the past some
>>>> people were really concerned about code size for static analysis and to
>>>> minimize binary sizes. I haven't heard any concerns about that in a
>>>> long time. If someone's really determined to make a tighter subset,
>>>> they'd have to go above and beyond turning off FEATURE_x flags anyway.
>>>>
>>>> And now, we're building one library that supports runtime selection of
>>>> full OpenGL profiles, core profiles and ES profiles. The FEATURE stuff
>>>> doesn't add any value for that and seems more trouble than it's worth.
>>>>
>>>> Any other opinions?
>>>
>>> I'm not a fan of the fine-grained FEATURE_x bits. If we had just a
>>> couple (like FEATURE_ES2) that were actually maintained, I could see
>>> the potential for value. As it is, I think it just adds maintenance
>>> burden.
>>
>> OK. Any volunteers to start removing the FEATURE_x lines?
>
> If nobody else wants to take this work, I'll do it. I suspect most if it
> could be done with unifdef (or sed) and possible white-space cleanup
> afterwards.
>
> Would you prefer one big "nuke all FEATURE_* defines" patch, or
> individual patches "remove FEATURE_a define", "remove FEATURE_b define",
> etc. (Obviously excluding the useful ones, _GL, _ES1, _ES2.)
>
> It doesn't make much difference to the amount of work for me.

I'd do it in a few chunks/patches at least (to aid in bisection if 
needed.)

Whether you do it file-by-file or FEATURE-by-FEATURE is up to you.  Be 
careful with the FEATURE_remap_table flag too, I think that one's a 
little tricky.

Thanks.

-Brian