Bill Crawford wrote: > On Saturday 28 March 2009 17:42:54 Simon Thum wrote: >> Rémi Cardona wrote: > ... >>> Can't we work something out with Qt folks? >> Good idea, but I think the above sounds like adopting a >> what-breaks-gets-fixed policy is the most realistic option. Adam >> probably has to say something enlightening. > > Weeeeell ... ISTR X existed before Qt ;o) so probably it should be they who > don't decide to conflict. But I'm just one man, one opinion ... I believe the problem is there was never a strict policy what header is defining what symbols, including by proxy. That changed, breakage.
I like the idea behind CARDn & friends, but (u)intN_t is C99, and Xmd.h doesn't seem to be so great either. Let's hope X is C99 by the time memory models are overhauled again. Or whatever is the master plan here. _______________________________________________ xorg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
