Hi developers, On Wed, Feb 7, 2024, 23:30 Jean-Baptiste Kempf <j...@videolan.org> 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 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 > > My recommendation is still this: > - move to C11 now > - activate C17 on some Fate/CI targets > - recommend C17 compilers modes > - move to C17 at this mid-year when 7.1 is branched (LTS if we follow our > plans) > I like this approach. It's a shame we can't get metrics on who might be genuinely affected by a direct move to C17. I'd be more than willing to host one or more FATE nodes with C17 turned on. Do let me know if this is desirable. -- Sean McGovern > _______________________________________________ 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".
