On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 04:34:52PM +0200, Martin Storsjö wrote: > On Thu, 19 Dec 2013, Diego Biurrun wrote: > >On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 09:21:28PM +0200, Martin Storsjö wrote: > >>On Tue, 17 Dec 2013, Diego Biurrun wrote: > >> > >>>Also unify the related ifdeffery in the atomics implementation. > >>>--- > >>> > >>>This fixes compilation on systems w/o any atomics implementation available, > >>>e.g. MinGW32 < 4.0. > >> > >>.. by disabling threading silently in those configurations - right? > >>E.g., configurations where w32threads would be enabled implicitly > >>(but isn't due to the lack of proper support for atomics), you will > >>silently get a slightly crippled build, with no threading? > >> > >>In general this might work smoother (no failed builds), but is it > >>better? What do others think? I'm a bit undecided. > > > >I'm also slightly undecided, but in any case we should fail early during > >configure and not late in the compile process. Other than that, I don't > >have much of an opinion myself. > > Yes, the earlier we can fail, the better of course. > > I tested this in a setup where atomics aren't supported, and it > doesn't look all too understandable to the user - configure still > says "threading support w32threads" and is built with > HAVE_W32THREADS=1 - only the main HAVE_THREADS is set to 0. So it's > not all too easy for the user to realize that threading actually > wasn't enabled even though all indicators show that it is.
OK, I'll see if there is a way to make all of this more transparent. Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
