[FFmpeg-devel] Proposal on clearly delineating nonC99 code in FFmpeg

Måns Rullgård mans
Sun Jul 8 00:57:51 CEST 2007

Roman Shaposhnik <rvs at sun.com> writes:

> On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 23:20 +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Crafting a test that really determines whether something works is
>> often less than trivial.  What appears to work in a simple test case
>> may well fail in obscure ways when used in real code.  This
>> notwithstanding, testing whether the constructs in question compile OK
>> is certainly better than only testing a preprocessor definition.
>   Seems like we are in agreement (although I'm waiting for Michael
> to chime in). Speaking of patches I would like to commit it in
> two phases: 
>    1. create a header file but still have everything in it be based
>       on #ifdef __GNUC__ and such
>    2. update ./configure and the header file

Sounds like a plan.  I'd even suggest changing one feature at a time
so accidental breakage is easier to isolate, as usual.

There is one problem with having configure test for features: it won't
work for features we want to use in a public header.  Hopefully those
can be kept to a minimum though.  Things like alignment specifiers
certainly do not belong there.

M?ns Rullg?rd
mans at mansr.com

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list