[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH][RFC] -std=c99
Wed Aug 13 01:43:38 CEST 2008
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.
> 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
> 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.
mans at mansr.com
More information about the ffmpeg-devel