[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavu: test for broken binutils on ARM
michaelni at gmx.at
Sat Jan 5 15:54:26 CET 2013
On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 10:48:09AM +0100, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 11:15:38PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 04:57:14PM -0500, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
> > > On 04/01/2013 4:20 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 07:08:32PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:49:33PM -0500, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
> > > >>> On 17/12/2012 12:46 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > >>>> i dont know such version range or if its reliable accross distros
> > > >>>
> > > >>> If you can point me at a CVS commit, or bug ID, I'll investigate.
> > > >
> > > > any news about this ?
> > >
> > > Caught up with holidays. The bug report itself says 2.20 and has a patch.
> > > However, I guess checking the version is a crapshoot, since tons of things
> > > use CVS versions of binutils.
> > >
> > > Ideally I don't think FFmpeg's code should be cluttered with warnings for
> > > being compiled/linked with broken toolchains, since that's kind of out
> > > of its scope.
> > >
> > > I guess go with whatever the majority want.
> > majority, what do you want ?
> Your original patch seems fine to me, even if I see only limited value
> in caring about broken toolchains.
> Personally I'd say go with whatever _you_ want.
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your
right to say it. -- Voltaire
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ffmpeg-devel