On 2/27/19 4:20 PM, Matteo Bruni wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 8:36 PM Michael Stefaniuc mstefani@winehq.org wrote:
On 2/25/19 7:38 PM, Matteo Bruni wrote:
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 11:33 PM Michael Stefaniuc mstefani@winehq.org wrote:
Signed-off-by: Michael Stefaniuc mstefani@winehq.org
dlls/d3dx9_36/effect.c | 536 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 264 insertions(+), 272 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/d3dx9_36/effect.c b/dlls/d3dx9_36/effect.c index b0dc366f6b..5bf66011ea 100644 --- a/dlls/d3dx9_36/effect.c +++ b/dlls/d3dx9_36/effect.c @@ -148,6 +148,8 @@ struct d3dx_technique struct IDirect3DStateBlock9 *saved_state; };
+#define ID3DXEffectImpl d3dx9_effect
Is it problematic (WRT your following patches, mostly) to just complete the rename right away and not introduce the define at all?
- Some of the helpers with a ID3DXEffectImpl parameter have inconsistent
naming: "d3dx_" and "d3dx9_". Do I fix it now? Patch is too big already. So I'm leaving the issue open; for the interested reader of course </hint>.
Actually, yeah, I think I prefer "d3dx_", I see we've been using that in newer stuff. Sorry!
I can make the change and resend this series if it's helpful.
Nah, not a problem. I can easily search and replace that in my existing patches.
- Oh, and I know the define is ugly but that is on purpose, just for
motivation to get that removed eventually (last if I'm doing it). If you beat me to it then be my guest, I have no outstanding patch that depends on that.
So it turns out I wrote a patch fixing up the last few uses, but if that means you lose motivation I'm going to drop it right away :P
Oh, I don't get demotivated by somebody doing cleanup work too ;) Actually it is easier if the maintainer does some initial patches too, just to serve as a template.
bye michael