[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH][RFC] -std=c99

[Måns Rullgård]

Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:

> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:20:06PM +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
>> 
>> I'd just go with -D_POSIX_C_SOURCE=200112 -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=600.
>
> why?
> Is there anything that has been added to them that we need?
> The whole point of my patch is to keep the set of dependancies for ffmpeg
> small.
> The older the spec we depend on the more likely ffmpeg will work fine in
> a random environment. Its much more likely that posix from 93 will be
> supported than posix from 2001. And enabling the new will make it less
> visible to developers who without knowing use more recent features.

Fair enough.  We can always increase it later if we feel the need.

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