Use regular signatures and proxying for glWaitSync/glClientWaitSync#25933
Merged
sbc100 merged 1 commit intoemscripten-core:mainfrom Dec 18, 2025
Merged
Use regular signatures and proxying for glWaitSync/glClientWaitSync#25933sbc100 merged 1 commit intoemscripten-core:mainfrom
sbc100 merged 1 commit intoemscripten-core:mainfrom
Conversation
Collaborator
|
Hmm, I can't remember. The only thing I vaguely recall about the wait timeout was the need to avoid 53-bit Number splicing.. but that doesn't seem to happen here. LGTM. |
juj
approved these changes
Dec 11, 2025
I can't see why this was done this way in the first place? The `PARAM_I64` support existed back in cdf7bc5 when proxying was first added. Perhaps it was just that the `EM_FUNC_SIG_XX` macros were harder write before `I64` was replaced with `J` in emscripten-core#20678? Fixes: emscripten-core#25932
hubot
pushed a commit
to google/skia
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 6, 2026
Upstream ref: emscripten-core/emscripten#25933 Change-Id: Ia5f33516abfc921ffedfca7297c4af6d4b07c0eb Reviewed-on: https://skia-review.googlesource.com/c/skia/+/1155136 Reviewed-by: Ben Wagner <bungeman@google.com> Reviewed-by: Thomas Smith <thomsmit@google.com> Commit-Queue: Ben Wagner <bungeman@google.com>
inolen
pushed a commit
to inolen/emscripten
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 13, 2026
…mscripten-core#25933) I can't see why this was done this way in the first place? The `PARAM_I64` support existed back in cdf7bc5 when proxying was first added. Perhaps it was just that the `EM_FUNC_SIG_XX` macros were harder write before `I64` was replaced with `J` in emscripten-core#20678? Fixes: emscripten-core#25932
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I can't see why this was done this way in the first place? The
PARAM_I64support existed back in cdf7bc5 when proxying was first added.Perhaps it was just that the
EM_FUNC_SIG_XXmacros were harder write beforeI64was replaced withJin #20678?Fixes: #25932