Re: [AD] XOR drawing under X11 (and what is _xwin_in_gfx_call)

[Peter Wang <tjaden@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Chris wrote:

> Elias Pschernig wrote:
>
> > Yes, I must admit, I tried sneaking in that naming change :) The
> > underscore should only be used for non-static functions IMHO. I think
> > that's how it is already handled in other parts of the source (not in
> > the x11 ones). Probably should update hacking.txt with info about this.
>
>
> Yeah, I did kinda wonder why even static functions were prefixed. 
> AFAIK, the prefix was to avoid name clashes, but you don't really need 
> to worry about that with static functions.
>
> So I guess if it's a vote, I don't mind static functions not being 
> prefixed.


That's preferred, but stay consistent within the existing file/module, 
unless you plan to fix the entire file/module (in which case it should 
be done in a separate patch).

> Weren't we going to drop the SIGALRM version anyway? When do we plan 
> on doing that?


From 4.3 onwards.

Peter