What about namespacing the ones in xserver instead? I'm sure it's possible
they could conflict with other platforms as well.
On Oct 29, 2011, at 10:24, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> On 10/29/11 00:16, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
>> Yuck. Is there really no other way to do that? What exactly are the
>> conflicts?
>
> It was the best one I saw.
>
> The Solaris definition:
>
> struct list_node {
> struct list_node *list_next;
> struct list_node *list_prev;
> };
>
> struct list {
> size_t list_size;
> size_t list_offset;
> struct list_node list_head;
> };
>
> The Xorg definition:
>
> struct list {
> struct list *next, *prev;
> };
>
> And then there's a couple overlapping function names with
> conflicting argument types since the Solaris ones take list_nodes
> for the individual list entries instead of struct list themselves:
>
> Solaris:
> int list_is_empty(list_t *);
>
> Xorg:
> static inline Bool list_is_empty(struct list *head);
>
>
> --
> -Alan Coopersmith- [email protected]
> Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System
>
_______________________________________________
[email protected]: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
