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

[Jonas Ådahl]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 05:56:45PM +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:
> 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?

--static is pretty clear, but --shared? Both WL_EXPORT and WL_PRIVATE
are "shared" but just different audiences.


Jonas

> Emil