On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 10:32:36 +0300 Giulio Camuffo <giuliocamu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2015-10-14 4:06 GMT+03:00 Jonas Ådahl <jad...@gmail.com>:
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 04:18:19PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 10:07:48PM +0200, David FORT wrote:
> >> > Server-side we need to know the versions for destructor requests.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: David FORT <cont...@hardening-consulting.com>
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Bryce Harrington <br...@osg.samsung.com>
> >>
> >> > ---
> >> > src/scanner.c | 1 +
> >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/src/scanner.c b/src/scanner.c
> >> > index f456aa5..406ba82 100644
> >> > --- a/src/scanner.c
> >> > +++ b/src/scanner.c
> >> > @@ -1266,6 +1266,7 @@ emit_header(struct protocol *protocol, enum side
> >> > side)
> >> > emit_structs(&i->request_list, i, side);
> >> > emit_opcodes(&i->event_list, i);
> >> > emit_opcode_versions(&i->event_list, i);
> >> > + emit_opcode_versions(&i->request_list, i);
> >
> > This will cause compilation error when an event and a request in the
> > same interface has the same name. Do we have that restriction already?
>
> That sounds real confusing. If we don't, we should have it, imho.
We kind of sort of may have it...
See this made up xml:
<protocol name="dupe">
<interface name="stupid" version="2">
<request name="dupp" />
<event name="dummy">
<description summary="bump the opcode" />
</event>
<event name="dupp" since="2" />
</interface>
</protocol>
This will already conflict without any "since" #definitions if both
client and server header are included in the same compilation unit,
because server header has
#define STUPID_DUPP 1
and client header has
#define STUPID_DUPP 0
This is a far-fetched example, but I think it shows that we really
should not have requests and events of the same name.
I would propose the following:
1. Patch wayland-scanner to reject protocols where an interface has
both a request and an event with the same name.
2. Wait for a stable Wayland release.
3. Start relying on never to have a request and an event with the same name.
This is overly cautious, but I think it is possible people have got
away with using a same name, and we should know if anyone wants to
complain while we have a chance to back out.
Thanks,
pq
pgpZAa9_M_8wd.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
