On 18/11/13 08:28, Martin Storsjö wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:12:07PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
>>
>>> --- a/configure
>>> +++ b/configure
>>> @@ -963,6 +963,16 @@ check_builtin(){
>>>
>>> +check_compile_assert(){
>>> + log check_compile_assert "$@"
>>> + name=$1
>>> + headers=$2
>>> + condition=$3
>>> + shift 3
>>> + disable "$name"
>>> + check_code cc "$headers" "char c[!!($condition) - 1]" "$@" &&
>>> enable "$name"
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> @@ -3393,6 +3404,9 @@ if enabled_all ccc glibc; then
>>>
>>> +check_compile_assert flt_lim "float.h limits.h" "DBL_MAX ==
>>> (double)DBL_MAX" ||
>>> + add_cppflags '-I\$(SRC_PATH)/compat/limits'
>>> +
>>
>> I'm not terribly fond of the name as I don't see any assertion being
>> invoked, nor do I think this test will be very reusable.
>
> Without commenting on the rest of this, this _IS_ a compile time assert
> - it's a pretty generic pattern. It doesn't need to invoke any assert by
> itself, but if the condition isn't true, the compiler will refuse to
> compile the snippet. See e.g. this:
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/807244/c-compiler-asserts-how-to-implement
+1
> Whether we'll need this for other things as well or not, I'm not sure.
We have at least one for arm inside the code.
lu
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
