Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes: > 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?
Since it actually does work to a usable extent, I'd rather not actively break it more than necessary. Deleting this line is not necessary. -- Måns Rullgård [email protected] _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
