[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Reenabling OS/2

[Måns Rullgård]

Dave Yeo wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:37:26 +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>
>>On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 10:20:14PM -0700, Dave Yeo wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:30:00 +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 05:48:16AM -0700, Dave Yeo wrote:
>>> >> Hi, doing a svn pull of ffmpeg last night and attempting to build I
>>> >> discovered that OS/2 support had been pulled. I guess due to lack of
>>> >> bugs as it was building here with just a couple of minor fixes needed.
>>> >> Here is a patch to reenable the OS/2 build. I have only supported gcc
>>> >> 3.3.5 (klibc063) and currently shared builds do not run due to DLL
>>> >> naming issues.
>>> >> This patch does not include various fixes needed for the old EMX build
>>> >> system but I doubt that anyone would use it to build ffmpeg.
>>> >> In the future I will try to file bugs if the build needs any tweeking.
>>> >
>>> >OS/2 support was broken and in lack of a maintainer, therefore it was
>>> >axed.  Are you willing to look after it?
>>>
>>> I will attempt to. I may need help from the list with things like
>>> fixing the shared build without adding much to the makefiles.
>>
>>Please start by getting a mailer that does not break threads.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by threads.

Then I strongly recommend that you read up on some basic email
terminology.

>>> --- configure	Mon Jul 23 21:39:16 2007
>>> +++ configure.os2	Mon Jul 23 22:06:46 2007
>>> @@ -678,6 +680,7 @@
>>>      memalign
>>>      mkstemp
>>>      mlib
>>> +    os2
>>>      ppc64
>>>      sdl
>>>      sdl_video_size
>>
>>What is this needed for?
>
> I'm not sure, but when I attempted to remove it configure died a
> horrible death. Seems to of got stuck in a circular dependency thing.
> Output was about 25 MBs before sh.exe did a sigsegv.
> Actually removing most things in the list has the same effect here.
> I have now tested on Linux, basically the same result.

I very much doubt that.  Altering that list only affects what gets
considered for config.h.  Removing an entry certainly should not
cause anything like what you say.  Are you sure your shell is working?

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd
mans at mansr.com