[Ffmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Correct inttypes.h emulation for Visual Studio
Mon Dec 4 16:01:04 CET 2006
--- M?ns Rullg?rd <mru at inprovide.com> wrote:
> Could you please fix the line-wrapping in your
> mailer, or switch to a mailer
> that gets it right? Fixing it manually when
> replying to you is getting tedious.
It does wrap the lines when I send mail to myself.
They are also wrapped when receiving my own messages
through the list. What exactly is the problem?
> It is certainly not my criteria. We're comparing
> compilers against the
> document titled ISO/IEC 9899:1999 Programming
> languages ??? C, aka C99. I
> had nothing to do with the authoring of this text.
> I do not even know any
> of those people who did.
I know a couple, but that's beside the point. My point
was a different one and I find it hard to understand
how you could miss it. The C99 standard contains a
large number of criteria out of which you selected a
subset. This selection is entirely based on your own
opinion regarding what you deem useful or reasonable
("You" applying to a group of people including
yourself). The C99 standard document as such has very
little to do with this. You consistently try to remove
yourself and your opinion from the game, as if you'd
presume that you had no choice of your own in
formulating those criteria. That is quite untrue. If
you had wanted you could have restricted the
requirements to C89 just as well. The actual decisions
you have made haven't been forced upon you by anybody,
particularly not by the C99 standard. So please stop
pretending and own up to your decisions. This is not
restricted by necessity, it is driven by choice.
> If you are trying to produce a C compiler today,
> opting not to support
> the most basic features of C99 does seem quite
> unreasonable. It's akin
> to writing a web browser that only supports HTML
> 2.0. (Oh, I forgot...
> MS do that as well.)
It does seem unreasonable according to your criteria.
In this particular issue I would more or less side
with you, too. But that does not make other people's
reasons and criteria invalid. M$ claim they had asked
their customers and less than 1 in 100 demanded C99
support. I don't know whether this is true and whether
it still would be true now, but it comes to show that
your judgment regarding the importance of C99 support
may not even agree with a sizeable part of the C
> I'm not presuming anything here. GCC happens to be
> one of many compilers
> that do have an adequate level of C99 support.
> Please take note that we
> do not support building with gcc1 on a libc4 based
> system either.
Again you gloss over the fact that it is down to
opinion what such an "adequate level" is. Before you
lecture on what I should please take note of, could
you please make a reasonable effort in trying to
understand what I am trying to get across? I don't
believe my arguments are overly obscure.
> The only reasons I've seen put forward so far *for*
> the inclusion of the
> proposed hack is sheer laziness on the part of the
> MSVC users. They want
> us to jump through hoops to save them 2 minutes of
> work. I'm sorry, but
> that's not likely to happen.
So far I didn't have the impression that the hoop was
particularly difficult to jump through, partly since
others did most of the jumping, and the solution
actually was already implemented. I think that you are
right with the one point that the solution is not
particularly difficult to solve by MSVC programmers,
but I also think you exaggerate the inconvenience for
yourself greatly. In other words, you do exactly what
you accuse the MSVC programmers of doing: You whinge.
> How can it be a matter of point of view whether MSVC
> has a certain typedef?
> It's quite indisputable that it's lacking a few that
> we happen to need.
I haven't claimed that the _existence of a typedef or
a header file_ is a matter of a point of view. What
I'm saying is that the _decision to require it from
the environment_ is a matter of a point of view. And
again I have to say I fail to understand how this
distinction could possibly have been lost on you.
> It was not only difficult to maintain, but also
> potentially incorrect. Hence
> we removed it.
So if it were reintroduced in a changed form that
wasn't potentially incorrect would it be accepted? I
very much doubt it. You don't want it, and you will
come up with any reason it takes to reject it, I fear.
And I also fear you will do that with a stance that
pretends it has nothing to do with you, but is merely
dictated by the 'facts'.
> OK, now you admit to trying to use ffmpeg headers
> with a compiler for a different language than said
> headers were written in. For your information,
> those headers do not work with compilers for Pascal,
> Fortran, ADA, or numerous other languages either.
Please take note that I'm not stupid. Your patronizing
language is quite inappropriate here, and if you are
as sensitive to offensive language from other people
as you have displayed recently you would do much
better to refrain from provoking it so openly.
> The fact that it cannot compiler ffmpeg headers is
> sufficient proof that is is deficient for the
> purposes of using ffmpeg headers.
That is true for a point of view that puts ffmpeg at
the center of the universe.
> OK, here you go: I, as an ffmpeg developer,
> acknowledge that there exist people who wish to use
> ffmpeg header files with compiler that are not able
> to compile them. Unfortunately, we are unable to
> accommodate these wishes.
It would be a lot more honest to change the last
sentence to read like this:
Unfortunately we are unwilling to accomodate those
wishes because we don't think supporting those people
would be worth our while.
>> I hope I could make clear what it is in your stance
>> comes across as provoking.
> Yes, I also wish you could do that.
If it hasn't worked by now I'm afraid I might be
unable. However I suspect this is less due to my
limited explaining skills as it is due to your lack of
effort or willingness to respect my position or at
least take it seriously. I wish you would grow up and
start to treat people no worse than you would like to
be treated yourself.
Der fr?he Vogel f?ngt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
More information about the ffmpeg-devel