On 07/07/2012 02:26 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote: > On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 09:59:50PM -0700, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Diego Biurrun <di...@biurrun.de> wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 10:33:19AM -0700, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Luca Barbato <lu_z...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>>> On 07/06/2012 07:13 PM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Måns Rullgård <m...@mansr.com> wrote: >>>>>>> "Ronald S. Bultje" <rsbul...@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> From: "Ronald S. Bultje" <rsbul...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This allows compiling and running these tests on systems lacking a >>>>>>>>> built- >>>>>>>>> in version of getopt(), such as MSVC. >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> configure | 2 ++ >>>>>>>>> libavcodec/dct-test.c | 7 +++++ >>>>>>>>> libavcodec/fft-test.c | 6 ++++ >>>>>>>>> libavcodec/getopt.c | 84 >>>>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>>>>> 4 files changed, 99 insertions(+) >>>>>>>>> create mode 100644 libavcodec/getopt.c >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ping. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No matter what, a replacement getopt.c does *not* belong in libavcodec/ >>>>>> >>>>>> So where does it go? Also, ping re: rest of the patch. >>>>> >>>>> Ops my email got lost... >>>>> >>>>> libavutil probably, is it the only place in which getopt is used? >>>> >>>> git says: >>>> tools/graph2dot.c >>>> libavcodec/motion-test.c >>>> libavcodec/fft-test.c >>>> libavcodec/dct-test.c >>> >>> IMO this is not worth the trouble. Test for getopt in configure and >>> compile those programs conditionally. >> >> They're part of fate. > > So? Just run the fate tests conditionally as well. > >> I don't understand the trouble part. I already did all the effort. >> What more trouble could there possibly be? Is deciding where to put >> getopt.c too much trouble? > > The trouble is having ever more replacements for basic system functions > in libav. That creates a maintenance burden going into the future, > which is in no way worth the gain of running two tests under MSVC.
an alternative is do w/out getopt.c lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
