On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Ronald S. Bultje <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Sep 8, 2012 2:37 PM, "Martin Storsjö" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, Måns Rullgård wrote: > > > >> Hendrik Leppkes <[email protected]> writes: > >> > >>> On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Martin Storsjö <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, Måns Rullgård wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hendrik Leppkes <[email protected]> writes: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Ronald S. Bultje < > [email protected] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This sounds like the wrong fix tbh. The first chunk looks OK but > >>>>>>> wouldn't other systems, eg old GCC versions, be similarly affected? > >>>>>>> Shouldn't the true fix live elsewhere, ie fix the log2() check? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> The log2 check is fine in theory. The linker somewhere finds a log2 > >>>>>> function to link in, but without a function declaration in the > header. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Find out where that log2 is coming from and what it really is. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> It seems that the log2 is present in the static libc that MSVC > normally > >>>> uses (but not in the dynamically loaded one), and the headers don't > contain > >>>> any declaration of it. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> And only in the 64-bit version. How odd. > >>> > >>> Still, something goes wrong when it trys to use it, causing fate to > fail. > >> > >> > >> If you have an implicit declaration for it returning int, it can't > >> possibly work. > > > > > > It seems to work fine if a manual declaration of the function (double > log2(double);) is added. > > Does msdn mention the existence of this at all? > > > Not that i managed to find.
_______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
