On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 08:37:35AM +0300, Oliver McFadden wrote: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 08:11:55AM -0600, Brian Paul wrote: > > On 09/05/2012 03:38 AM, Oliver McFadden wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 12:41:12PM -0600, Brian Paul wrote: > > >> On 09/04/2012 12:08 PM, Ian Romanick wrote: > > >>> On 09/04/2012 08:16 AM, Brian Paul wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >>>> Most of the patch is 'FEATURE_x' changes. I've been tempted to rip out > > >>>> all that stuff. > > >>>> > > >>>> The original idea was to make it easy for people to build smaller Mesa > > >>>> subsets (and the ES subset) by running the code through the > > >>>> preprocessor > > >>>> with all the FEATURE_x flags set on/off as needed. In the past some > > >>>> people were really concerned about code size for static analysis and to > > >>>> minimize binary sizes. I haven't heard any concerns about that in a > > >>>> long time. If someone's really determined to make a tighter subset, > > >>>> they'd have to go above and beyond turning off FEATURE_x flags anyway. > > >>>> > > >>>> And now, we're building one library that supports runtime selection of > > >>>> full OpenGL profiles, core profiles and ES profiles. The FEATURE stuff > > >>>> doesn't add any value for that and seems more trouble than it's worth. > > >>>> > > >>>> Any other opinions? > > >>> > > >>> I'm not a fan of the fine-grained FEATURE_x bits. If we had just a > > >>> couple (like FEATURE_ES2) that were actually maintained, I could see > > >>> the potential for value. As it is, I think it just adds maintenance > > >>> burden. > > >> > > >> OK. Any volunteers to start removing the FEATURE_x lines? > > > > > > If nobody else wants to take this work, I'll do it. I suspect most if it > > > could be done with unifdef (or sed) and possible white-space cleanup > > > afterwards. > > > > > > Would you prefer one big "nuke all FEATURE_* defines" patch, or > > > individual patches "remove FEATURE_a define", "remove FEATURE_b define", > > > etc. (Obviously excluding the useful ones, _GL, _ES1, _ES2.) > > > > > > It doesn't make much difference to the amount of work for me. > > > > I'd do it in a few chunks/patches at least (to aid in bisection if > > needed.) > > Agree. > > > > > Whether you do it file-by-file or FEATURE-by-FEATURE is up to you. Be > > careful with the FEATURE_remap_table flag too, I think that one's a > > little tricky. > > OK, thanks for the warning. I will do it FEATURE-by-FEATURE, > file-by-file shouldn't be how Git is used, and anyway I'd probably still > have to do FEATURE-by-FEATURE within those files...
I apologize for the delay in making and sending out the patches. I have been quite sick and am just now recovering. I should be sending something out tomorrow, Tuesday, GMT+3 afternoon/evening. > > -- > Oliver McFadden. -- Oliver McFadden. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
