On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 23:05:29 +0100
Matthias Rabault wrote:
> Whenever I would include config.h outside of vis.c, it would complain, so I
> put the definitions in vis.h so that I could include them.
So you rewrote/rearranged half of the program instead of RTFM? Do you even know
how the CPP work
config.def.h relies on a bunch of definitions made in vis.c. Whenever I would
include config.h outside of vis.c, it would complain, so I put the definitions
in vis.h so that I could include them. There is probably a better solution
though, as I'm no C expert.
As to the separate patch thing, I o
On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 22:41:19 +0100
Matthias Rabault wrote:
> The two values were previously supplied as "magic constants".
Well, apart from this idea, what's the reason for the vis.h-header
and why is it not a separate patch?
--
FRIGN
The two values were previously supplied as "magic constants".
Signed-off-by: Matthias Rabault
This raises another problem with the includes. I had to put some of the
definitions in vis.h, but in turn that made gcc complain that there were
functions declared in vis.h but not defined in this heade
