Hi all, Pretty much all the feedback that I've received has been addressed. If you have anything to share please go ahead, otherwise I will be pushing this tomorrow/the day after. Thanks Emil On 1 April 2015 at 17:15, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi all, > > As mentioned by Alan, some compilers do not like it when the symbol > declaration and definition differ wrt their visibility attribute. > > Afaict there are three ways to handle this; > - Add the drm_public macro into the public headers, and annotate the > declarations. > - Use version script to limit the exported symbols. > - Remove the drm_public macro/VISIBILITY_CFLAGS and annotate the > private symbols. > > From the above three I believe that 3) is the better one as: > - it does not add drm_public to the library API, > - does not rely on features that some platform may be missing (or > require singling out every platform in the configure.ac script). > > So I've went ahead with 3), added a few tests and wired them to > `make check' so that one can easily catch problems. > > I have checked that the libraries do not export any new symbols and the > scripts work as intended nearly a dozen times :-) > > The whole series can be found in branch reannotate-symbols at > https://github.com/evelikov/libdrm > > Cheers, > Emil > > _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
