On Tue,  5 Jul 2016 20:41:50 +0200
Quentin Glidic <[email protected]> wrote:

> From: Quentin Glidic <[email protected]>
> 
> Practical example: a client supporting version 2 of wl_output will wait
> for the wl_output.done event before starting wl_output-related
> operations. However, if the server only supports version 1, no event
> will ever come, and it must fallback to use the wl_output.geometry event
> alone.
> Without this macro, it cannot check for that in a nice way.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Quentin Glidic <[email protected]>
> ---
> 
> I do not have a real world use-case for the request macro on the server-side,
> but I guess you could do the same: wait the for a "commit" request if client 
> is
> new enough, otherwise use some older request as commit.
> 
> Actually I think there was something like that somewhere, now that I write 
> that,
> but I do not remember where exactly.
> 
> 
>  src/scanner.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/src/scanner.c b/src/scanner.c
> index 4708cae..a4c1984 100644
> --- a/src/scanner.c
> +++ b/src/scanner.c
> @@ -1544,10 +1544,12 @@ 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);
>                       emit_event_wrappers(&i->event_list, i);
>               } else {
>                       emit_structs(&i->event_list, i, side);
>                       emit_opcodes(&i->request_list, i);
> +                     emit_opcode_versions(&i->event_list, i);
>                       emit_opcode_versions(&i->request_list, i);
>                       emit_stubs(&i->request_list, i);
>               }

Hi,

I have just one question about this. Users must be able to include both
server and client headers in the same compilation unit. Wouldn't this
cause the same thing to be #defined in two different headers? More
importantly, are we sure it won't cause problems?


Thanks,
pq

Attachment: pgpL_NHQ6HvYW.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
wayland-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel

Reply via email to