Hi, On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On 07/06/2012 07:13 PM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Måns Rullgård <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> "Ronald S. Bultje" <[email protected]> writes: >> >> >>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Ronald S. Bultje >> >> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>>>> From: "Ronald S. Bultje" <[email protected]> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> 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.
It is already written, so there is no burden. Libavutil/ sounds ok to me for placement, any other comments (Mans?) or can I commit it as such? I can also add a new directory called "libbrokenos/" and place it there if people prefer that. Ronald _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
