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. -Emil _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
