On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Martin Storsjö <mar...@martin.st> writes:
>
> > ---
> > configure | 9 ++++++++-
> > 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/configure b/configure
> > index fab4f2b..5e76a28 100755
> > --- a/configure
> > +++ b/configure
> > @@ -1822,7 +1822,7 @@ set_default host_cc
> >
> > exesuf() {
> > case $1 in
> > - mingw32*|cygwin*|*-dos|freedos|opendos|os/2*) echo .exe ;;
> > + mingw32*|cygwin*|*-dos|freedos|opendos|os/2*|symbian) echo .exe ;;
> > esac
> > }
> >
> > @@ -2480,6 +2480,13 @@ case $target_os in
> > add_cppflags -D_QNX_SOURCE
> > network_extralibs="-lsocket"
> > ;;
> > + symbian)
> > + SLIBSUF=".dll"
> > + enable dos_paths
> > + # This include flag is added here instead of in extra_cflags,
> > + # since it mustn't end up in asflags
>
> I don't think that comment is necessary.
>
> > + add_cflags --include=$sysinclude/gcce/gcce.h
> > + ;;
> > none)
> > ;;
> > *)
> > --
>
> OK
Pushed with the comment removed.
> Obvious question: can we run fate on that?
Not without serious amounts of ugly hacking. I think FATE on Windows CE
would be simpler to get up and running, and that's not particularly easy
either. I'm not aware of either of them mounting a remote filesystem, for
starters.
I can set up a compile-only FATE for this configuration, though, I already
run one for Win CE, catching build failures at least.
// Martin
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
libav-devel@libav.org
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
