ogl-sample
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ogl-sample] .spec file syntax for assignments

To: ogl-sample@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ogl-sample] .spec file syntax for assignments
From: "Marcelo E. Magallon" <marcelo.magallon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 13:29:28 +0100
In-reply-to: <3BFE1DAD.8FB417B4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <3BFE1DAD.8FB417B4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: ogl-sample@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-ogl-sample@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.24i
>> Sven Panne <Sven_Panne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

 > As already noticed by several people on this list, the .spec files
 > have a few buglets, like referencing extensions which are commented
 > out, using "@@" to mark a place to fix outside a comment, etc. Will
 > this be fixed soon?

 Same question here.  After my initial reports, I found some more bugs,
 but since I never saw any effect coming out of said reports, I didn't
 send further ones.  From the top of my head, glXCreateContext is
 declared as returning void.  Ahem.  Pointers are declared as "Int32"
 (which in turn is an alias for "int", i.e., the fact that the
 implementor didn't actually force 32 bits on Int32 is a lucky shot).

 And someone documenting the difference between:

    ./doc/registry/specs/glx.spec
    ./gfx/include/gl/spec/glx.spec

 (the "two types of spec files" Sven refers to) would be nice.  After
 some poking arround I came to the arbitrary conclusion that the 'doc'
 version is the canonical one.

 > Nothing very serious, but it would be nice if the .spec files could
 > be processed automatically without prior patching or extensive
 > workarounds in the tools using them.

 Ditto.

-- 
Marcelo

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>