[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH][RFC] -std=c99
Wed Aug 13 01:06:57 CEST 2008
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:22:41PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:47:54PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 08:56:12PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> > [...]
> >> >
> >> > Most (all?) of the above-mentioned functions are POSIX standard, so
> >> > there should be no need for _BSD_SOURCE. If anything does require
> >> > this, we should look for a POSIX alternative.
> >> Ill try again with xopen and posix and without bsd
> > done, the following works for me too
> > lower values of _XOPEN_SOURCE fail with:
> > ffserver.c:4474: error: ?SA_RESTART? undeclared (first use in this function)
> > lower values of _POSIX_C_SOURCE fail with:
> > libavdevice/v4l.c:294: error: storage size of ?ts? isn?t known
> > Index: configure
> > ===================================================================
> > --- configure (revision 14508)
> > +++ configure (working copy)
> > @@ -1827,6 +1827,7 @@
> > check_cflags -Wwrite-strings
> > check_cflags -Wtype-limits
> > enabled extra_warnings && check_cflags -Winline
> > +check_cflags -std=c99 -fasm -D_POSIX_C_SOURCE=199309 -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=500
> The -std=c99 and -fasm should be separate tests, since compilers might
> support only one. The -D flags can be set unconditionally.
which compiler are you thinking about here?
-std=c99 and -fasm are not independant, as the first depends on the second
-std=c99 alone will cause compilation to fail with gcc at least.
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
Old school: Use the lowest level language in which you can solve the problem
New school: Use the highest level language in which the latest supercomputer
can solve the problem without the user falling asleep waiting.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ffmpeg-devel