[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Other configure version check patches

[Måns Rullgård]

Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> writes:

> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 10:03:48PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> writes:
>> 
>> > On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 08:51:01PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> >> Stefano Sabatini <stefano.sabatini-lala at poste.it> writes:
>> >> 
>> >> > MinGW patche by Ramiro, this patch also suggest a better way to convey
>> >> > the meaning of the check to the user, so I think that
>> >> > require_cpp_condition() may be safely removed.
>> >> >
>> >> > --- configure	(revision 15634)
>> >> > +++ configure	(working copy)
>> >> > @@ -1736,7 +1736,7 @@
>> >> >  enabled libx264    && require  x264 x264.h x264_encoder_open -lx264 -lm \
>> >> > -                   && require_cpp_condition x264 x264.h "X264_BUILD >= 65"
>> >> > +                   && { check_cpp_condition x264.h "X264_BUILD >= 65" || die "libx264 version must be >= 0.65."; }
>> >> 
>> >> Are those { } really needed?  It seems to me it should work fine
>> >> without (and that's how I would probably have done it in the first
>> >> place).
>> >
>> > I wondered the same thing.
>> >
>> >> > --- configure	(revision 15633)
>> >> > +++ configure	(working copy)
>> >> > @@ -1316,6 +1316,10 @@
>> >> > +        check_cpp_condition w32api.h "(__W32API_MAJOR_VERSION > 3) || (__W32API_MAJOR_VERSION == 3 && __W32API_MINOR_VERSION >= 12)" ||
>> >> > +            die "w32api must be >= 3.12."
>> >> 
>> >> Those lines are frightfully long, but I don't see any better alternative.
>> >
>> > For example:
>> >
>> >     check_cpp_condition w32api.h "(__W32API_MAJOR_VERSION > 3) || (__W32API_MAJOR_VERSION == 3
>> >                                 && __W32API_MINOR_VERSION >= 12)" || die "w32api must be >= 3.12."
>> 
>> If a line is longer than 80 characters, it doesn't really get worse
>> until it hits 160.
>
> It could be split at the || as well...

I don't like quoted strings spanning multiple lines either.  I would
just go with the single line.  The alternatives aren't really any
easier to read.

>> BTW, your split would need a backslash or two.
>
> No, the quotes take care of this.

The quotes quote the newline, upon which the preprocessor will choke.

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