On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 12:45:13AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: > Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes: > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:03:21AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: > >> Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes: > >> > --- a/configure > >> > +++ b/configure > >> > @@ -2065,9 +2065,6 @@ probe_cc(){ > >> > gcc_ext_ver=$(expr "$gcc_version" : ".*$gcc_pkg_ver > >> > $gcc_basever \\(.*\\)") > >> > _ident=$(cleanws "gcc $gcc_basever $gcc_pkg_ver $gcc_ext_ver") > >> > - if ! $_cc -dumpversion | grep -q '^2\.'; then > >> > - _depflags='-MMD -MF $(@:.o=.d) -MT $@' > >> > - fi > >> > >> What harm does this do? Despite not being officially supported, gcc > >> 2.95 still builds the code just fine. Keeping that line there is hardly > >> a burden. > > > > It does not build here, I get 7 or so errors and the file with the > > redirected stderr has 30k lines of warnings. > > More code to support gcc 2.95 was removed from configure in the past, > > this hunk I just overlooked. Let's get rid of it. > > Why are you so eager to delete things? The presence of that line is not > causing any problems.
It is cruft and only there because I previously overlooked it. It does absolutely no good and bloats an already complex part of configure. Why would you want to keep it around when we don't support gcc 2.95? Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
