Will like to see some action on ScreenWakeupHandlerProcPtr related patch

[Kevin Brace]

Hi Alan,

I am not asking to change the ABI.
I just spotted an inconsistency in how ScreenWakeupHandlerProcPtr is defined inside compat-api.h and scrnintstr.h.
That appears the root of the problem.
I consider this a bug.
If I apply the patch to X Server's header file, the warning goes away.

Proof:

https://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-savage/tree/src/compat-api.h?id=dce59663ecd846831724d6d7303ee813fa458a7d (Line 85)

https://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/tree/include/scrnintstr.h?h=server-1.19-branch&id=ebfb06b11955a6c32500b7086be912ab96b753a7 (Line 280 and 281)


It appears that only xf86-video-savage is affected by this mismatch.
I think this patch should be applied to 1.19 and 1.20.
Assuming that the xf86-video-savage patches I just posted are applied, this compilation warning related to ScreenWakeupHandlerProcPtr prototype is the only warning I get when I compile xf86-video-savage.

Regards,

Kevin Brace
Brace Computer Laboratory blog
https://bracecomputerlab.com


> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 12:31 AM
> From: "Alan Coopersmith" <alan.coopersmith at oracle.com>
> To: "Kevin Brace" <kevinbrace at gmx.com>, xorg-devel <xorg-devel at lists.x.org>
> Subject: Re: Will like to see some action on ScreenWakeupHandlerProcPtr related patch
>
> On 12/17/18 03:09 PM, Kevin Brace wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I posted a small patch related to ScreenWakeupHandlerProcPtr several days ago.
> > 
> > https://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2018-December/057793.html
> > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/268118/
> > 
> > I usually limit my work to DDXs, so this is the first time I generated a patch for X Server itself.
> > I believe this patch applies to X Server 1.19 and 1.20.
> > In particular, I will like to see the patch backported to the future X Server 1.19.7 maintenance release since it affects S3 Savage DDX.
> > Furthermore, is X Server 1.19.7 going to be released soon?
> > I hope the patch gets incorporated into that release.
> 
> Isn't that an ABI break which will break every other driver?  (At least on 
> 64-bit systems where unsigned long is twice the size of int.)
> 
> We don't do those in stable releases like 1.19.x.
> 
> -- 
> 	-Alan Coopersmith-               alan.coopersmith at oracle.com
> 	 Oracle Solaris Engineering - https://blogs.oracle.com/alanc
>