2010/4/27 Manfred Tremmel <manf...@links2linux.de>: > Am Dienstag, 27. April 2010 schrieb Cristian Morales Vega: > >> Using the latest version of your ffmpeg package I get a problem >> compiling some software. >> As an example, this is the relevant part of config.log from Aegisub: >> >> configure:24901: checking whether FFMPEG works >> configure:24958: g++ -o conftest -g -O2 -Wall -Wextra >> -Wno-unused-parameter -Wno-long-long -fpermissive >> -fno-strict-aliasing -std=c++98 -pipe -O2 -I/usr/include/libswscale >> -I/usr/include/libavutil -I/usr/include/libavcodec >> -I/usr/include/libavutil -I/usr/include/libavformat >> -I/usr/include/libavcodec -I/usr/include/libavutil >> -I/usr/include/libavutil -lswscale -lavcodec -lavformat >> -lavutil conftest.cpp -lm >&5 >> In file included from /usr/include/libavutil/avutil.h:81, >> from /usr/include/libavcodec/avcodec.h:30, >> from /usr/include/libavformat/avformat.h:56, >> from conftest.cpp:3: >> /usr/include/libavutil/common.h: In function 'int32_t >> av_clipl_int32(int64_t)': /usr/include/libavutil/common.h:154: >> error: 'UINT64_C' was not declared in this scope > > Take a look at: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/fink-us...@lists.sourceforge.net/msg21003.html > > adding -D__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS to the compiler flags my fix this > problem. > >> Other software gives the same UINT64_C problem at some point. It >> seems the problem comes from this exact version: >> http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-cvslog/2010-April/029212.html > > Sorry, was not my desission to change this.
At the ffmpeg-devel IRC channel I got a "libav* uses C99 if you want to use it from C++ you're on your own". Since I don't like the idea of having to patch every and each (spec from) C++ app that uses libavutil what I propose is to patch the libavutil/common.h header with. #if !defined UINT64_C # if __WORDSIZE == 64 # define UINT64_C(c) c ## UL # else # define UINT64_C(c) c ## ULL # endif #endif Taken from my stdint.h. It should be kept in sync with glibc, but I don't expect it to change too much anyway. Isn't something upstream can take, but not so bad for a distro-specific patch. What I like about it is that if an app works without this patch, this patch does nothing. At worst it will brake something that was already broken. _______________________________________________ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
