On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 13:58:25 -0800
Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 01:45:03PM +0200, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > now we have three API candidates with patches (and my own idea[1]
> > without patches so it doesn't count). Here is what I have gathered, let
> > me kn
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 14:29:06 +
Benoit Gschwind wrote:
> Hello Pekka,
>
> Thanks for your review. I agree with you analyses but I have few additions.
>
> On 02/16/16 11:45, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > now we have three API candidates with patches (and my own idea[1]
> > withou
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 01:45:03PM +0200, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> now we have three API candidates with patches (and my own idea[1]
> without patches so it doesn't count). Here is what I have gathered, let
> me know if I got something wrong.
>
>
> Giulio's proposal:
> https://patchwo
Hello Pekka,
Thanks for your review. I agree with you analyses but I have few additions.
On 02/16/16 11:45, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> now we have three API candidates with patches (and my own idea[1]
> without patches so it doesn't count). Here is what I have gathered, let
> me know if
Hi all,
now we have three API candidates with patches (and my own idea[1]
without patches so it doesn't count). Here is what I have gathered, let
me know if I got something wrong.
Giulio's proposal:
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/67547/
It uses transparent structs that get passed throu
