On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 11:22 AM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> Even so, a C17-supporting compiler (gcc 11.2.1) is available for CentOS 7
> in the devtoolset-11-gcc package (from
> http://mirror.centos.org/centos/7/sclo/x86_64/rh/).
As a 'User' of the FFmpeg project, we have a lot of
On Monday, 05 February 2024 at 21:53, Niklas Haas wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 15:13:22 -0500 Devin Heitmueller
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 2:59 PM Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > >
> > > It should be available in all relevant modern compilers and will
> > > allow us to use features like
Feb 8, 2024, 20:05 by jamr...@gmail.com:
> On 2/8/2024 3:52 PM, Sean McGovern wrote:
>
>> Hi developers,
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 7, 2024, 23:30 Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024, at 01:36, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
>>>
> There were simply no
On 2/8/2024 3:52 PM, Sean McGovern wrote:
Hi developers,
On Wed, Feb 7, 2024, 23:30 Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024, at 01:36, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
There were simply no objections to moving to C11.
The C17 plan came about later because it has
Hi developers,
On Wed, Feb 7, 2024, 23:30 Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024, at 01:36, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
> >> There were simply no objections to moving to C11.
> >> The C17 plan came about later because it has important bugfixes.
> >> It doesn't
Rémi Denis-Courmont:
>
>
> Le 7 février 2024 23:19:41 GMT+02:00, James Almer a écrit
> :
>> On 2/7/2024 6:10 PM, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Feb 7, 2024, at 11:27 AM, Lynne wrote:
>>
>> As a compromise, we could start requiring C11 now, and C17 in
Le 7 février 2024 23:19:41 GMT+02:00, James Almer a écrit :
>On 2/7/2024 6:10 PM, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 7, 2024, at 11:27 AM, Lynne wrote:
>>>
>
> As a compromise, we could start requiring C11 now, and C17 in 7.1.
> Or does anyone still care
Hello,
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024, at 01:36, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
>> There were simply no objections to moving to C11.
>> The C17 plan came about later because it has important bugfixes.
>> It doesn't really matter as compilers backported the new behaviour to C11
>> (or rather, they
> On Feb 7, 2024, at 1:48 PM, Lynne wrote:
>
> Feb 7, 2024, 22:11 by ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org:
>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 7, 2024, at 11:27 AM, Lynne wrote:
>>>
>
> As a compromise, we could start requiring C11 now, and C17 in 7.1.
> Or does anyone still care about compilers without
Feb 7, 2024, 22:11 by ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org:
>
>
>> On Feb 7, 2024, at 11:27 AM, Lynne wrote:
>>
As a compromise, we could start requiring C11 now, and C17 in 7.1.
Or does anyone still care about compilers without even c11 support?
>>>
>>> How about C11 now and C17 in a
On 2/7/2024 6:10 PM, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
On Feb 7, 2024, at 11:27 AM, Lynne wrote:
As a compromise, we could start requiring C11 now, and C17 in 7.1.
Or does anyone still care about compilers without even c11 support?
How about C11 now and C17 in a year with ffmpeg
> On Feb 7, 2024, at 11:27 AM, Lynne wrote:
>
>>>
>>> As a compromise, we could start requiring C11 now, and C17 in 7.1.
>>> Or does anyone still care about compilers without even c11 support?
>>>
>>
>> How about C11 now and C17 in a year with ffmpeg 8?
>>
>
> Do you have setups and
Feb 7, 2024, 19:52 by ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org:
>
>
>> On Feb 7, 2024, at 1:55 AM, Anton Khirnov wrote:
>>
>> As a compromise, we could start requiring C11 now, and C17 in 7.1.
>> Or does anyone still care about compilers without even c11 support?
>>
>
> How about C11 now and C17 in a year with
> On Feb 7, 2024, at 1:55 AM, Anton Khirnov wrote:
>
> As a compromise, we could start requiring C11 now, and C17 in 7.1.
> Or does anyone still care about compilers without even c11 support?
How about C11 now and C17 in a year with ffmpeg 8?
- Cosmin
Quoting Devin Heitmueller (2024-02-07 17:15:30)
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 4:50 AM Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > Not to mention anonymous unions were standardized in C11 and widely
> > available for many years (possibly decades) before that, so it's hardly
> > a 'latest whizbang feature'.
>
> Yeah, I
Hello Anton,
On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 4:50 AM Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > Now I know that developers *LOVE* to use the latest whizbang language
> > features,
>
> Could we please not have these kinds of caricatures in here? It's not
> helpful.
Permit me to rephrase:
In my 25+ years of experience as
Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-05 21:45:10)
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 09:31:45PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-05 21:27:27)
> > > please wait a bit with applying this so we understand better what it
> > > affects
> >
> > Sure, but I'd like it to go in
Quoting Niklas Haas (2024-02-05 21:55:04)
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 21:31:45 +0100 Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-05 21:27:27)
> > > please wait a bit with applying this so we understand better what it
> > > affects
> >
> > Sure, but I'd like it to go in before 7.0.
>
Quoting Devin Heitmueller (2024-02-05 21:40:43)
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 3:31 PM Anton Khirnov wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Devin Heitmueller (2024-02-05 21:13:22)
> > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 2:59 PM Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It should be available in all relevant modern compilers and will
Feb 6, 2024, 07:51 by dcni...@gmail.com:
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 8:59 PM Anton Khirnov wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/configure b/configure
>> index f72533b7d2..1bb9e23f19 100755
>> --- a/configure
>> +++ b/configure
>> @@ -5517,21 +5517,20 @@ if test "$?" != 0; then
>> die "C compiler test failed."
On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 8:59 PM Anton Khirnov wrote:
> diff --git a/configure b/configure
> index f72533b7d2..1bb9e23f19 100755
> --- a/configure
> +++ b/configure
> @@ -5517,21 +5517,20 @@ if test "$?" != 0; then
> die "C compiler test failed."
> fi
>
> -add_cppflags -D_ISOC99_SOURCE
>
On date Monday 2024-02-05 21:55:04 +0100, Niklas Haas wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 21:31:45 +0100 Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-05 21:27:27)
> > > please wait a bit with applying this so we understand better what it
> > > affects
> >
> > Sure, but I'd like it to
On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 21:31:45 +0100 Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-05 21:27:27)
> > please wait a bit with applying this so we understand better what it affects
>
> Sure, but I'd like it to go in before 7.0.
What is the advantage to having it in 7.0?
On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 15:13:22 -0500 Devin Heitmueller
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 2:59 PM Anton Khirnov wrote:
> >
> > It should be available in all relevant modern compilers and will allow
> > us to use features like anonymous unions.
>
> Is everybody on board with the implications for
On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 09:31:45PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-05 21:27:27)
> > please wait a bit with applying this so we understand better what it affects
>
> Sure, but I'd like it to go in before 7.0.
This seems to break my stuff
I will upgarde my stuff
On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 3:31 PM Anton Khirnov wrote:
>
> Quoting Devin Heitmueller (2024-02-05 21:13:22)
> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 2:59 PM Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > >
> > > It should be available in all relevant modern compilers and will allow
> > > us to use features like anonymous unions.
> >
>
On 2/5/2024 5:30 PM, Anton Khirnov wrote:
Quoting Devin Heitmueller (2024-02-05 21:13:22)
On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 2:59 PM Anton Khirnov wrote:
It should be available in all relevant modern compilers and will allow
us to use features like anonymous unions.
Is everybody on board with the
Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-05 21:27:27)
> please wait a bit with applying this so we understand better what it affects
Sure, but I'd like it to go in before 7.0.
--
Anton Khirnov
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
Quoting Devin Heitmueller (2024-02-05 21:13:22)
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 2:59 PM Anton Khirnov wrote:
> >
> > It should be available in all relevant modern compilers and will allow
> > us to use features like anonymous unions.
>
> Is everybody on board with the implications for this patch in
On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 08:54:40PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> It should be available in all relevant modern compilers and will allow
> us to use features like anonymous unions.
>
> Note that stdatomic.h is still emulated on MSVC, as current versions
> require the /experimental:c11atomics, and
Feb 5, 2024, 20:59 by an...@khirnov.net:
> It should be available in all relevant modern compilers and will allow
> us to use features like anonymous unions.
>
> Note that stdatomic.h is still emulated on MSVC, as current versions
> require the /experimental:c11atomics, and do not support
>
On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 2:59 PM Anton Khirnov wrote:
>
> It should be available in all relevant modern compilers and will allow
> us to use features like anonymous unions.
Is everybody on board with the implications for this patch in terms of
platforms we allow building on? For example, the gcc
Quoting James Almer (2024-02-05 21:12:00)
> Does SunCC support this? Does anyone use SunCC at all?
I do not know, but if it doesn't then we can drop it.
--
Anton Khirnov
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
On 2/5/2024 4:54 PM, Anton Khirnov wrote:
It should be available in all relevant modern compilers and will allow
us to use features like anonymous unions.
Note that stdatomic.h is still emulated on MSVC, as current versions
require the /experimental:c11atomics, and do not support
It should be available in all relevant modern compilers and will allow
us to use features like anonymous unions.
Note that stdatomic.h is still emulated on MSVC, as current versions
require the /experimental:c11atomics, and do not support
ATOMIC_VAR_INIT() anyway.
---
Now moving to C17 rather
35 matches
Mail list logo
