On 9/15/2016 11:54 AM, James Almer wrote: > On 9/15/2016 7:23 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> 2016-09-15 12:19 GMT+02:00 Josh de Kock <j...@itanimul.li>: >>> On 15/09/2016 10:58, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >>>> >>>> 2016-09-15 10:39 GMT+02:00 Josh de Kock <j...@itanimul.li>: >> >>>>> #include "config.h" >>>>> + >>>>> +#if HAVE_SDL2 >>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry if this should be obvious: >>>> What is the effect of this #if? >>>> >>> Don't worry, it's not really that obvious. If HAVE_SDL2 is false but >>> HAVE_SDL is true, then ffplay.c will get macro'd out, and ffplay_sdl1.c will >>> get added to the ffplay sources (see the Makefile change). If you can think >>> of a better way to do it, feel free to suggest. >> >> Thank you for explaining! >> >> Am I correct that with this patch only, sdl2 compilation of ffplay fails? > > Technically speaking, with this patch only there's no ffplay SDL2 > just yet. It's still SDL1, but you're right that compilation would > probably fail since it's SDL1 code in a configure setting where > SDL2 was selected (even if SDL1 headers were available and the > object sucessfully built, gcc would not link with SDL1 libraries). > > I guess the sanest thing to do would be to squash patches two and > three.
Nevermind, disregard this. ffplay still depends on SDL1 at this point, so configure with SDL2 would not even try to build it until next patch. > >> >> Carl Eugen >> _______________________________________________ >> ffmpeg-devel mailing list >> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org >> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel >> > _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
