On 07/03/2015 06:44 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 01/07/15 12:37, Tapani Pälli wrote:
>> (We need this include in porting changes for the OpenGL ES
>> conformance suite.)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tapani Pälli <tapani.palli at intel.com>
>> ---
>> intel/intel_bufmgr.h | 8 ++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/intel/intel_bufmgr.h b/intel/intel_bufmgr.h
>> index 285919e..f061454 100644
>> --- a/intel/intel_bufmgr.h
>> +++ b/intel/intel_bufmgr.h
>> @@ -38,6 +38,10 @@
>> #include <stdint.h>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>>
>> +#if defined(__cplusplus) || defined(c_plusplus)
>> +extern "C" {
>> +#endif
>> +
> Strongly in favour - I've been pondering on this for a very long time.
> Just a question - is there a compiler that care about (something from
> the last decade) that does not define __cplusplus but c_plusplus ?
I don't know, this was just copy paste from other file.
> Afaict the former is defined since (at least) the 1998 C++ standard,
> while the latter is extremely rare, and mostly mentioned as decrecated.
For me it is ok to drop c_plusplus, no strong opinion.
> -Emil
>
// Tapani
