[Ffmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Partial port of ffmpeg to MS Visual C - and a note on the inttypes.h issue

Diego Biurrun diego
Tue Jan 30 14:22:34 CET 2007

On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 12:26:43PM +0100, Steve Lhomme wrote:
> Diego Biurrun wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 09:25:38AM +0100, Steve Lhomme wrote:
> >>Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 10:15:00AM +0100, Steve Lhomme wrote:
> >>>>Anyway, C99 doesn't cover inline ASM AFAIK so you can't seriously say 
> >>>>that FFMPEG is not designed for gcc.
> >>>you know very well that they are under #ifdefs (some of the other people
> >>>who claimed that ffmpeg where written for gcc may or may not have known 
> >>>that but you do as you have worked with the code)
> >>The ASM code is #ifdef'd by the makefile. If you compile the code with 
> >>another compiler it will fail because the ifdefs are not clean. I 
> >>actually made some changes recently to DrFFMPEG to have both ppc and 
> >>i386 ASM compiled in the same project at the same time (to make 
> >>universal binaries in XCode) and I had to add some cleaner #ifdef's.
> >
> >Why exactly are the #ifdefs not clean?  It's much cleaner to control
> >conditional compilation from the build system instead of using the
> >preprocessor.
> Until it's made irrelevant for universal/fat binaries as in Darwin/OS X.

The build system is made irrelevant?  This is not an answer to my

IMO universal/fat binaries are just a special case of cross-compilation.
Also, since you produce two binaries, simply building two times is not
out of the question.


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list