On Sat Jun 8 23:15:39 2024 +0000, Matteo Bruni wrote:
If we ever want to do that, we should consider using PARENTSRC instead of duplicating the whole thing, in principle at least. Right now that's already reserved for d3dx9_xx -> d3dx9_36, although the only reason for that is to avoid forwarded exports (bug 21817) which can now be alternatively solved via -import in the .spec file. So I guess I'd prefer forwarding to d3dcompiler for the time being, assuming that works properly, and reevaluating once we actually need a separate implementation for d3dx9 (whether it's really separate or mostly shared via PARENTSRC). That said, I'm not really opposed to 1/3.
I guess PARENTSRC seems a little excessive for 200 lines of code...
I can't say I'm thrilled about redoing this, when this is probably going to be the final form, but I suppose that's on me for not consulting first.