Re: update: Re: [dwm] recent changes to dwm (since dwm-3.5)

From: Anselm R. Garbe <>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:25:19 +0100

On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:08:28AM +0000, David Tweed wrote:
> |The motivation is reducing the code, grouping the functions into
> |more intuitive sets and reducing the amount of exported
> |functions (only because several functions have been called from
> |a different object in one place - that was really annoying).
> |So all in all this also reduces the call graph and makes the
> |executable slightly smaller than before. Beside the fact of the
> |new Layout struct being ready for more layout-specific
> |additions.
> Could I just see if it's possible for mainline to just not mark
> drawtext as not static? (I'm looking to see if there's a simpler
> way of re-instituting per-window titles than Ross Mohn's patch
> - which is very impressive but looks to me like a huge
> pain to maintain - which inherently involves both writing
> strings and traversing the client list so having both sets of
> functions static means more patching. I'd image Ross's titles patch
> would also be slightly shorter without having to un-static this.)

Hmm, actually I doubt marking drawtext as non-static will help.
Simply because such a patch should come packed with a
drawtitle(Client *c) function which should be located in main.c
to easily access drawtext instead. This is because the
drawtitle function needs to map the drawed client title anyways
to the client title window (you will also need resizetitle()

> Does the slight change in executable size from making them
> static actually remotely
> matter? I work with images/databases and the resident code

Actually it does not matter much. But I prefer keeping functions
static which don't really need to be exported.


 Anselm R. Garbe >< >< GPG key: 0D73F361
Received on Tue Feb 20 2007 - 13:25:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 14:37:40 UTC