[Mesa-dev] [PATCH v2 1/3] nv50/ir: support different unordered_set implementations
cwhuang at android-x86.org
Sat Jun 20 22:31:57 PDT 2015
2015-06-20 9:04 GMT+08:00 Chih-Wei Huang <cwhuang at android-x86.org>:
> 2015-06-20 3:12 GMT+08:00 Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com>:
>> Hi Chih-Wei,
>> On 19 June 2015 at 19:00, Chih-Wei Huang <cwhuang at android-x86.org> wrote:
>>> diff --git a/Android.common.mk b/Android.common.mk
>>> index d662d60..35dcda2 100644
>>> --- a/Android.common.mk
>>> +++ b/Android.common.mk
>>> @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ LOCAL_CFLAGS += \
>>> LOCAL_CPPFLAGS += \
>>> - $(if $(filter true,$(MESA_LOLLIPOP_BUILD)),-D_USING_LIBCXX) \
>>> + $(if $(filter true,$(MESA_LOLLIPOP_BUILD)),-std=c++11) \
>> Please expand like elsewhere in the build. Additionally this is a C++
>> only flag, so LOCAL_CPPFLAGS does not sound like the right place.
>> Shame that the Android folk did not like (f'd up) the standard
> Seems you misread it.
> LOCAL_CPPFLAGS is the C++ only flag.
>> ifeq ....MESA_LOLLIPOP_BUILD...
>> LOCAL_C??FLAGS += \
> Personally I like the compact format.
> But if you prefer the style, I can update it.
After re-thinking the style, I hope to keep as it is.
Actually the style is already accepted in my last patch.
This patch only changed the unused -D_USING_LIBCXX
to more appropriate -std=c++11.
I consider the $(if ) operator of makefile to be
analogous to ? : operator of C/C++.
I know some people dislike ? : operator,
but most programmers won't reject it
since it make the code more elegant.
I also see the ? : operator is used in
Mesa's code extensively.
In short, I think the patch is good
and no plan to update it.
Could you merge it?
More information about the mesa-dev