On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 04:05:21PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote: > On 22 August 2016 at 15:38, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> That said, _note_ that some applications are built with -C89 -pedantic > >>> [1] which means that using stdint.h may or may not work as expected. > >>> So we'll want a __STDC_VESION__ check + #error in case of pre-C99 ? > >>> If the affected programs are proprietary ones we should be safe, > >>> otherwise we want to update them ~alongside the transition. > >> > >> naw, at least for msm_drm.h, just don't build libdrm_freedreno w/ > >> -C89.. problem solved! > > > > Yeah, I think sprinkling an > > > > #ifdef __kernel___ > > #include <linux/types.h> > > #else > > #include <stdtypes.h> > > #endif > > > Guess i was too vague :-] > > I was thinking about the following cases: > - using old/incomplete stdint.h - thus the __STDC_VESION__ check. > - building non-libdrm software - for libdrm we've (implicitly and > explicitly) required C99 for a long time. > > > at the opt of all drm uapi headers should be good enough. Or at least > > those which opt to choose stdints. Since our userspace is very > > limited, and our headers will never leak to general applications we > > can just require c99, at least for driver headers. For kms/general drm > > uapi that might not be the best idea. > Won't doing so bring more confusion to an already convoluted topic ? > If we opt for it, let's have a juicy comment that clarifies things. If we require C99 in libdrm since ages then I think there's no problem with outright requiring working stdint support in drm uapi headers everywhere. We still need a bit of #ifdef though I think to impendence match between kernel and userspace. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
