On 10/11/2013 12:48 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>> Then if strip is added back, it should be a proper silent command.
>>
>> What OS specific options? This does *not* strip the libs the way you think,
>> and thus we do not need the OS-specific options, AFAIK.
>
> The command generates warnings on some platforms, presumably because
> the syntax is nonportable. What are those warnings? Does the stripping
> work at all on the platforms that generate warnings?
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Warning: You have not read all emails associated with |
| this commit yet.yet. |
| |
| Somebody else may already have answred what you are about |
| ask in your reply. Please read the all context before |
| replying to any email about it. |
| |
| [CANCEL] |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
http://lists.libav.org/pipermail/libav-devel/2013-October/051802.html
strip is not POSIX. strip is *only* binutils. The only "portability" check
we need is for a sufficiently new version. Technically, we don't even need
that, since as it is, if -wN is not recognized, it is a noop, which is the
correct behavior for our use case. We are *only* stirpping the spurious
labels, and nothing else, if -wN exists.
>> What is a "proper" silent commend? Note the '@'.
>
> See SILENT in Makefile.
Well OK, seems pretty silly for just one call though. Added to the
list.
- Derek
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
