Quoting Andreas Rheinhardt (2022-08-04 14:54:41)
> Michael Niedermayer:
> > On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 03:58:26PM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> >> There are currently three possible modes for an output stream:
> >> 1) The stream is produced by encoding output from some filtergraph. This
> >> is true when ost->enc_ctx != NULL, or equivalently when
> >> ost->encoding_needed != 0.
> >> 2) The stream is produced by copying some input stream's packets. This
> >> is true when ost->enc_ctx == NULL && ost->source_index >= 0.
> >> 3) The stream is produced by attaching some file directly. This is true
> >> when ost->enc_ctx == NULL && ost->source_index < 0.
> >>
> >> OutputStream.stream_copy is currently used to identify case 2), and
> >> sometimes to confusingly (or even incorrectly) identify case 1). Remove
> >> it, replacing its usage with checking enc_ctx/source_index values.
> >> ---
> >> fftools/ffmpeg.c | 23 +++++++++--------------
> >> fftools/ffmpeg.h | 1 -
> >> fftools/ffmpeg_opt.c | 33 ++++++++++++---------------------
> >> 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
> >
> > seems to break build with shared libs:
> >
> > CC fftools/ffmpeg.o
> > src/fftools/ffmpeg.c:405:32: warning: suggest braces around initialization
> > of subobject [-Wmissing-braces]
> > struct sigaction action = {0};
> > ^
> > {}
> > src/fftools/ffmpeg.c:1612:37: error: address argument to atomic operation
> > must be a pointer to non-const _Atomic type ('const atomic_uint_least64_t
> > *' (aka 'const _Atomic(uint_least64_t) *') invalid)
> > uint64_t frame_number = atomic_load(&ost->packets_written);
> > ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > /usr/lib/llvm-6.0/lib/clang/6.0.0/include/stdatomic.h:134:29: note:
> > expanded from macro 'atomic_load'
> > #define atomic_load(object) __c11_atomic_load(object, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST)
> > ^ ~~~~~~
> > 1 warning and 1 error generated.
> > src/ffbuild/common.mak:81: recipe for target 'fftools/ffmpeg.o' failed
> > make: *** [fftools/ffmpeg.o] Error 1
> >
> > [...]
> >
>
> This has nothing to do with shared libs. It is just that C11 defines
> atomic_load in such a way that it does not allow a pointer to const
> atomic; presumably because atomic types might be emulated via mutexes in
> which case even a read involves a write.
I don't even get a warning with gcc 11 or clang 13.
--
Anton Khirnov
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
