[FFmpeg-devel] Question about supported_fps in libavutil/timecode.c::check_fps

wm4 nfxjfg at googlemail.com
Sun Jan 25 17:29:42 CET 2015


On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 12:06:33 +0100
Reimar Döffinger <Reimar.Doeffinger at gmx.de> wrote:

> On 24.01.2015, at 21:09, wm4 <nfxjfg at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 18:37:01 +0000
> > Derek Buitenhuis <derek.buitenhuis at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 1/24/2015 4:33 PM, wm4 wrote:
> >>> Which ones? We even expect C99 support from the compiler.
> >> 
> >> Doesn't matter. It's the project's policy to have decls at
> >> block beginnings. Yes some of us think it's better.
> >> 
> >> We know you don't. Don't start an ideological troll war.
> > 
> > Having dumb policies is fine, but then don't use broken compilers as
> > excuse. Just say it's your policy to do it this way, even if there's no
> > technical necessity.
> 
> Maybe not really relevant, but since I wrote it... Skip it unless you have time to waste ;)
> I guess it's an old habit from when we still used to support gcc 2.95 :)
> Which btw last I tried some months ago still worked except for very few cases.
> Thing is, we require not that much of C99 and most is header or preprocessor-related or used very, very rarely.

Well, it was enough that someone wrote a c99-to-c89 converter (using
clang), which was the only way to compile ffmpeg on C89-only MSVC.
(Newer MSVC versions support C99 or parts of it, so this is not a
problem anymore.)

> And while I don't know where they come from, every now and then I hear about someone asking for C89 support for some product (possibly custom in-house compilers for strange architectures/OS? Symbian maybe still hiding in some hole?).
> But with even tinycc supporting it I guess it's reasonable to say that any "technical" reasons that might exist are more related to someone's laziness than a real technical reason.
> That said, I still prefer it even though I write C++ every day. Maybe it's just an old habit and secretly longing back to writing PASCAL as in my childhood days ;)

PASCAL at least has reasonable syntax for it.

Anyway, I didn't mean to start a flamewar, but if it's the project's
policy, then just say it, instead of using inadequate excuses like
compilers that someone dug out from an archeological site from before
the Neolithic. Because people will look at the technical because and
realize it doesn't make much sense.


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list