[Ffmpeg-devel] network include files for MinGW

[Ramiro Polla]

M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Ramiro Polla <angustia at arrozcru.no-ip.org> writes:
>
>   
>> M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>>     
>>> "Fran?ois Revol" <revol at free.fr> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>>> ramiro at lisha.ufsc.br writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MinGW doesn't have some include files used in networking such as
>>>>>> arpa/inet.h.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the preferable way of going around this?
>>>>>> - #ifdef in each file with these includes
>>>>>> - make a network.h file with the #ifdefs inside it, and every
>>>>>> network file
>>>>>> should include it
>>>>>> - make configure generate dummy include files for MinGW builds
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> I prefer option #2.  The fewer #ifdefs, the better.
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> I actually removed the #ifdefs __BEOS__ for arpa/inet.h just a week
>>>> ago :D
>>>> What I thought about instead was to have fake headers instead. For
>>>> BeOS only arpa/inet.h is missing (and only for R5 actually), so it
>>>> wouldn't be too hard.
>>>> How many are missing for MinGW ?
>>>>
>>>> What we could do is have a platform/ folder (or support/ or compat/
>>>> or whatever) with folders for platforms needing headers.
>>>> For ex:
>>>>
>>>> platform/beosr5/arpa/inet.h
>>>> platform/mingw/arpa/inet.h
>>>> platform/mingw/whatever.h
>>>>
>>>> and configure would just add -Iplatform/$platform/ to CFLAGS.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Having header files with names intentionally the same as system header
>>> files is a bad idea.  It will only lead to trouble sooner or later.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> We could also just use a single header like os_support.h for the
>>>> network.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> The proper solution is for the configure script to check which headers
>>> are present.  Workarounds can then  be provided for the specific
>>> features that are missing from the target system.
>>>       
>> Would something like this be acceptable?
>>     
>
> No.  That's exactly what I said not to do.
>
>   

Sorry, then I misunderstood what you meant. What "Workarounds" exactly 
would you have in mind? #ifdefs?