[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 03/30] i965: Make brw_{program, shader, vec4, vs}.h safe to include from C++.

[Kenneth Graunke]

On 08/21/2013 07:54 AM, Paul Berry wrote:
> On 20 August 2013 11:58, Kenneth Graunke <kenneth at whitecape.org
> <mailto:kenneth at whitecape.org>> wrote:
>
>     On 08/20/2013 11:30 AM, Paul Berry wrote:
>
>         ---
>            src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw___program.h  |  8 ++++++++
>            src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw___shader.cpp |  2 +-
>            src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw___shader.h   |  7 ++++++-
>            src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw___vec4.h     | 12 ++++++++++--
>            src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw___vs.h       |  8 ++++++++
>            5 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
>
>     I like the change to brw_program.h and brw_vs.h.  But I'm confused
>     by the changes to brw_shader.h and brw_vec4.h---those are already
>     only used by C++ code, and full of C++ stuff.
>
>     Perhaps you're making them safe to include from C, for some reason?
>
>
> Yeah, sorry.  I got confused at some point while I was rebasing this
> series and squashed together two unrelated patches.  You're right that
> the changes to brw_shader.h and brw_vec4.h are to make them safe to
> include from C.  They're needed for patch 6 (i965/vec4: Move vec4 data
> structures and functions to brw_vec4.{cpp,h}).  How about if I split
> those changes out to their own patch, put it just before patch 6, and
> make the commit message something like this?
>
> Make brw_{shader,vec4}.h safe to include from C.
>
> The patch that follows will move the definition of struct
> brw_vec4_prog_key from brw_vs.h to brw_vec4.h, making it necessary for
> brw_vs.h to include brw_vec4.h (because brw_vs.h defines struct
> brw_vs_prog_key, which contains brw_vec4_prog_key as a member).  Since
> brw_vs.h is included from C source files, that means that brw_vec4.h
> will need to be safe to include from C.  Same for brw_shader.h, since it
> is included by brw_vec4.h.

Sounds good to me.  I don't know that you really need to split it into 
two patches, but some comments might be nice.

--Ken