On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote: > Le quartidi 4 nivôse, an CCXXIV, Ganesh Ajjanagadde a écrit : >> The prototype checking is already done above via check_mathfunc, which >> follows your idea. > > No, it is not done, and especially not the way I suggested. > >> The trouble is that check_ld succeeds with/without >> GNU_SOURCE, hence the issue reported by Michael. > > Exactly: check_mathfunc does not check for a prototype, it checks for an > implementation. > >> However, the function >> can only be used if GNU_SOURCE has been defined. > > Untrue. It can only be used if it has a prototype. As it happens, on YOUR > libc, it is only defined if _GNU_SOURCE is defined (and that is with an > underscore), it is just an implementation detail. Another libc could use > another feature check macro, or declare the function unconditionally.
Sorry, confused the prototype with an implementation. > > The correct way is to check for a prototype, and this can be done as I > suggested (but there may be better solutions). Before I rework, to make sure I understand, why don't other math functions merely test for a prototype as you suggest? > > Regards, > > -- > Nicolas George > > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
