[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] Android: define PIPE_OS_BSD

[Emil Velikov]

On 6 June 2017 at 07:30, Chih-Wei Huang <cwhuang at android-x86.org> wrote:
> 2017-06-06 13:06 GMT+08:00 Chih-Wei Huang <cwhuang at android-x86.org>:
>> 2017-06-05 21:04 GMT+08:00 Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com>:
>>> On 4 June 2017 at 04:31, Chih-Wei Huang <cwhuang at android-x86.org> wrote:
>>>> Android bionic is derived from OpenBSD. So the logics of BSD
>>>> almost apply to Android as well.
>>>>
>>> Having platform FOO define both PIPE_OS_BSD and PIPE_OS_LINUX does not
>>> seem so obvious bth.
>>
>> Yeah.. but that's true.
>> Android is a BSD-style userspace
>> running on a Linux kernel.
>>
>>>> It fixes the warnings
>>>>
>>>> external/mesa/src/gallium/auxiliary/os/os_process.c:43:2: warning: unexpected platform in os_process.c [-W#warnings]
>>>>  ^
>>>> external/mesa/src/gallium/auxiliary/os/os_process.c:97:2: warning: unexpected platform in os_process.c [-W#warnings]
>>>
>>> These are are due to program_invocation_short_name/getprogname. How
>>> about updating the file alike xmlconfig.c?
>>
>> Oh... I didn't notice that.
>> Let me check.
>
> Well, I saw several BSD OSes define
> the same context:
>
> #elif defined(__NetBSD__) && defined(__NetBSD_Version__) &&
> (__NetBSD_Version__ >= 106000100)
> #    include <stdlib.h>
> #    define GET_PROGRAM_NAME() getprogname()
> #elif defined(__DragonFly__)
> #    include <stdlib.h>
> #    define GET_PROGRAM_NAME() getprogname()
> #elif defined(__APPLE__)
> #    include <stdlib.h>
> #    define GET_PROGRAM_NAME() getprogname()
> #elif ...
>
> Not sure why has no OpenBSD?
Your guess is as good as mine. Jonathan, any ideas if/who this is
supposed to work for you guys?

> Android definitely has getprogname().
> (at least since Lollipop as I know)
>
> Should I add:
>
> #elif defined(__OpenBSD__) || defined(ANDROID)
> #    include <stdlib.h>
> #    define GET_PROGRAM_NAME() getprogname()
> #elif...
>
> I either don't understand why not all the BSD OSes
> which has getprogname() share the same if case.
>
It should be doable but need a bit of cleanup:
 - doubt we're can use GLIBC earlier than v2 // not BSD related
 - the FreeBSD/NetBSD version checks could(?) be dropped
For each case, please check (CC) some people using the respective platform.
Mesa git log and the respective upstream repos should have contact points.

Thanks
Emil