On 27 July 2015 at 10:59, Tapani Pälli <tapani.palli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> 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.
>
That'll be great. Thanks.
-Emil
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
