Le 7 février 2024 23:19:41 GMT+02:00, James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> a écrit : >On 2/7/2024 6:10 PM, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel wrote: >> >> >>> 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. > >What are the fixes in c17 that we would benefit from, that compilers from >before 2017 would be affected by?
Besides editorial corrections with no practical impact, C17 allows initialising atomics directly, without ATOMIC_VAR_INIT. This shouldn't be a problem for any real C11 compiler, but I haven't checked. Then it also allows atomic load from const-qualified pointers. I don't know if this is relevant to FFmpeg. There may be other small differences that I don't remember or know of. _______________________________________________ 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".
