[Mesa3d-dev] Re: [Xorg] [Fwd: Re: CVS Update: xc (branch: trunk)]

[Keith Whitwell]

Keith Whitwell wrote:
> Alexander Gottwald wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Keith Whitwell wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Alexander Gottwald wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Keith Whitwell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I haven't looked at this change yet, but I'm leery of downstream 
>>>>> modifications to extras/Mesa/*.  If the change to GL/gl.h is 
>>>>> warranted, it should be submitted as a patch to Mesa.  This is a 
>>>>> key file and changes to it are closely monitored & must be well 
>>>>> understood and justified.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> As it stands, I believe Mesa builds & runs on windows without 
>>>>> modification.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is not a change for win32 but for cygwin. Cygwin by default 
>>>> does not use
>>>> stdcall semantics but this is required if we wish to link to the 
>>>> windows opengl32 library.
>>>>
>>>> The patch only changes the GLAPIENTRY macro to use __stdcall if 
>>>> USE_OPENGL32 is defined.
>>>> If it is required, I'll send it as a patch to mesa too.
>>>
>>>
>>> That should be done by changing the definition of GLAPIENTRY - I 
>>> haven't looked at the change as I said, but it is 500+ lines of 
>>> differences.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is between 1.1 and 1.2
>>
>> The actual change is
>> $ cvs diff -kk -r 1.1.1.3 -r 1.2 gl.h
>> Index: gl.h
>> ===================================================================
>> RCS file: /cvs/xorg/xc/extras/Mesa/include/GL/gl.h,v
>> retrieving revision 1.1.1.3
>> retrieving revision 1.2
>> diff -u -r1.1.1.3 -r1.2
>> --- gl.h        16 Jun 2004 09:16:30 -0000      1.1.1.3
>> +++ gl.h        21 Jun 2004 13:35:05 -0000      1.2
>> @@ -61,6 +61,9 @@
>>  #    define GLAPI extern
>>  #  endif /* _STATIC_MESA support */
>>  #  define GLAPIENTRY __stdcall
>> +#elif defined(__CYGWIN__) && defined(USE_OPENGL32) /* use native 
>> windows opengl32 */
>> +#  define GLAPI extern
>> +#  define GLAPIENTRY __stdcall
>>  #else
>>  /* non-Windows compilation */
>>  #  define GLAPI extern
>>
>> bye
>>     ago
> 
> 
> Why are you comparing 1.1.13 and 1.2?  Surely the appropriate 
> appropriate comparison is between 1.1 and 1.2?
> 
> The results of the 1.1/1.2 diff are too large to post, but correspond 
> well with the numbers (+547 -876) that went out in the original CVS 
> message.  Is it possible that you have inadvertently made a bigger 
> change than you intended, eg. by backing out parts of the recent Mesa 
> merge?

Actually, it looks like this is part of the Mesa merge which was previously on 
the branch (1.1.1.3) and has now escaped to the trunk.  In any case it looks 
like you've made a bigger-than-intended change to the trunk.

Keith