On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 12:38:05PM +0200, Steve Lhomme wrote: > Le 30/03/2018 à 10:46, Diego Biurrun a écrit : > > On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 09:36:05AM +0200, Steve Lhomme wrote: > > > --- a/configure > > > +++ b/configure > > > @@ -4581,6 +4582,7 @@ check_lib ole32 "windows.h" > > > CoTaskMemFree -lole32 > > > check_lib shell32 "windows.h shellapi.h" CommandLineToArgvW -lshell32 > > > check_lib wincrypt "windows.h wincrypt.h" CryptGenRandom > > > -ladvapi32 > > > check_lib psapi "windows.h psapi.h" GetProcessMemoryInfo -lpsapi > > > +check_cpp_condition Vista+ windows.h "_WIN32_WINNT >= 0x0600" && > > > check_lib bcrypt "windows.h bcrypt.h" BCryptGenRandom -lbcrypt > > Do you really need to check the Vista condition? What about using bcrypt > > unconditionally if available? > > Yes, you need to use it only on builds that won't run on XP. Otherwise it > will fail to load the bcrypt.dll and the whole libavutil DLL (or whatever > its form) will fail to load. It would be possible to do it dynamically but > IMO it's overkill. It's not really a critical component.
Is bcrypt available on XP? If no then the CPP condition check would seem unnecessary. You could just check for bcrypt and bcrypt being available would imply Vista. I think I'm missing something. > But with time if XP support is dropped this check can go and wincrypt > dropped entirely. Is it maybe time to consider dropping XP support? > > The variable name with an uppercase letter > > and a '+' is slightly odd. I'm not sure if it can cause problems but I > > cannot rule it out offhand either. > > It seems the same is only used in config.log. And the + didn't cause any > problem for me. I remain sceptical; "it worked for me" is usually not a good argument when considering edge cases ;) Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
