[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH][RFC] -std=c99
Wed Aug 13 01:43:04 CEST 2008
Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:
> 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?
None in particular.
> -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.
GCC isn't the only compiler around.
mans at mansr.com
More information about the ffmpeg-devel