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

[Emil Velikov]

On 25 January 2018 at 02:01, Jonas Ådahl <jadahl at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 07:15:09PM +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> On 24 January 2018 at 18:20, Derek Foreman <derekf at osg.samsung.com> wrote:
>> > 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?
>> >
>> Right, the cover letter [1] covers some of the high-lights/differences.
>> As a TL;DR: using static/shared is more common and gives us more
>> flexibility for the future.
>>
>> So far Pekka is the only person who commented on the series/approach
>> and seemed happy.
>> I was expecting others to weight in - say Jonas ;-) I'll respin the
>> series tomorrow.
>>
>> In hindsight --object-type={shared,static} is too much of a mouthful,
>> I'll opt for --{static,shared} for v2.
>
> I have no opinion of what variant to land (I'm slightly too lazy to
> search for my own, and this is high up the inbox thanks to the replies,
> so lets focus on this one).
>
> My only nit is using the term "object-type". I think refering to it as
> "visibility" ("symbol visibility" if wanting to be extra verbose) where
> one can say 'export', 'static' or 'private' is more accurate.
>
> "objects" are a Wayland protocol thing and that is not what we are
> poking at here.
>
Right using "object" might be misleading. On the other hand,
--shared/--static are well known and dead-obvious.
Plus it gives us flexibility to sweep more things under it, if we get
some funky stuff in the future.

Can I buy you on the different name?
Emil