[PATCH wayland v3] Add support for direct file reading and writing in wayland-scanner.

[Pekka Paalanen]

On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 09:38:22 +0100
Hardening <rdp.effort at gmail.com> wrote:

> Le 03/03/2015 09:11, Pekka Paalanen a écrit :
> > On Mon,  2 Mar 2015 16:08:00 +0200
> > Jussi Pakkanen <jpakkane at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Add support for direct file reading and writing in wayland-scanner.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jussi Pakkanen <jpakkane at gmail.com>
> >>
> >> ---
> >>  src/scanner.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/src/scanner.c b/src/scanner.c
> >> index 1f1e59a..efdc69c 100644
> >> --- a/src/scanner.c
> >> +++ b/src/scanner.c
> >> @@ -39,11 +39,12 @@ enum side {
> >>  static int
> >>  usage(int ret)
> 
> [...]
> 
> > 
> > However, Bill and Bryce had a point. I wonder if we are happy with this
> > kind of ad-hoc extension of the CLI, after all it is "stable ABI" in a
> > sense. Would anyone want to do this with proper command line option
> > parsing, using options instead of adding more "anonymous" position
> > dependent arguments? Or would it become just even more weird?
> > 
> > Personally I don't really care. There is still room for hacking more
> > features in if needed, and if we find ourselves in a corner, we could
> > build another binary with a different name and a new CLI.
> > 
> > Thoughts, anyone?
> > 
> > If no-one objects, I'm inclined to merge this patch with my R-b, say,
> > next week?
> > 
> +1 too.
> 
> I don't like very much the requirement for both input and output file,
> but I can live with it.

We can always relax requirements later.

Now that was one long week... :-p
Pushed.
   439b0a3..2d46da1  master -> master

Thanks,
pq