> On Feb 7, 2024, at 1:48 PM, Lynne <d...@lynne.ee> wrote: > > Feb 7, 2024, 22:11 by ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org: > >> >> >>> On Feb 7, 2024, at 11:27 AM, Lynne <d...@lynne.ee> 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 reasons why you can't update them >>> that don't support C17 or are you speculating? >>> >> >> I don't have any personal reasons why I can't support C17 immediately, but >> C11 now / C17 in a year seems like an approach more likely to find consensus >> than C17 immediately (or bumping to C17 in a minor release). It was also >> roughly the approach proposed in person at FOSDEM. >> > > It wasn't? > 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 consistently had the same behaviour, but now it became a > standard). >
There were no objections to C11, however C17 was brought up and there were objections that it's likely too soon and I believe JB proposed holding off for a year on C17 (while adopting C11 immediately), which seemed to have consensus. Or at least that's my recollection of the in person discussion. - Cosmin _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
