[PATCH 3/5] scanner: introduce --object-type option

[Derek Foreman]

On 2018-01-22 09:30 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 22 August 2017 at 14:02, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 18 August 2017 at 13:05, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The exported configuration would then be:
>>>>> LOCAL_INTERFACE_DECL=extern
>>>>> EXTERN_INTERFACE_DECL=extern
>>>>> LOCAL_INTERFACE_DEF=WL_EXPORT
>>>>>
>>>>> That would be far too flexible and no-one would use it right, right?
>>>>>
>>>> I did not introduce separate tokens, since those are (and should be)
>>>> used _only_ in the .c file.
>>>> Personally then do not seem necessary, If you prefer we can add them though.
>>>
>>> Ah, no, that was just a wild idea of something completely different. I
>>> meant that the user project would be setting those macros before using
>>> scanner-generated files, and if unset, the scanner-emitted code would
>>> default to the legacy behaviour. That way there would be no visibility
>>> modes in scanner itself. If it's not obviously better, then nevermind.
>>> It certainly has a lot more room to go wrong than your proposal.
>>>
>>>
>> I see.
>>
>> Personally I'd lean towards with my approach for now since it is
>> simpler, despite that it provides less flexibility.
>> As you pointed out the proposal is a bit more fragile, so might be
>> better to avoid until there's a real need for it.
>>
>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> The patch looks pretty much correct to me, if we choose to go this way.
>>>>>
>>>> Glad to hear.
>>>>
>>>> I'll let me know once you guys are settled in on the approach, and
>>>> I'll respin the series with all the comments addressed.
>>>
>>> Cool, let's see if we can get the name conflict issue solved, and then
>>> I'll try to remember to ping you.
>>>
>> Ack, I'll keep an eye open, just in case.
>>
> Considering the status of the the name conflict series, should I
> re-spin this lot?
> I'm more than happy to tweak things - say rename the toggle, etc.

I see there were two series proposed to control symbol visibility, yours 
and Jonas'?

Assuming that once we drop the symbol collision issue they both solve 
the same problems, it would be good if we could focus on one going forward.

Is this the chosen one?

Thanks,
Derek

> Thanks
> Emil
> _______________________________________________
> wayland-devel mailing list
> wayland-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
>