[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/4] checkasm/Makefile: add EXTRALIBS-libavformat

[Paul B Mahol]

On 3/18/18, James Almer <jamrial at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/18/2018 12:17 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote:
>> On 3/18/18, James Almer <jamrial at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/18/2018 10:40 AM, josh at itanimul.li wrote:
>>>> From: Josh de Kock <josh at itanimul.li>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>  tests/checkasm/Makefile | 2 +-
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tests/checkasm/Makefile b/tests/checkasm/Makefile
>>>> index 0520e264e2..ae7e810d25 100644
>>>> --- a/tests/checkasm/Makefile
>>>> +++ b/tests/checkasm/Makefile
>>>> @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ tests/checkasm/checkasm.o: CFLAGS += -Umain
>>>>  CHECKASM := tests/checkasm/checkasm$(EXESUF)
>>>>
>>>>  $(CHECKASM): $(CHECKASMOBJS) $(FF_STATIC_DEP_LIBS)
>>>> -	$(LD) $(LDFLAGS) $(LDEXEFLAGS) $(LD_O) $(CHECKASMOBJS)
>>>> $(FF_STATIC_DEP_LIBS) $(EXTRALIBS-avcodec) $(EXTRALIBS-avfilter)
>>>> $(EXTRALIBS-avutil) $(EXTRALIBS-swresample) $(EXTRALIBS)
>>>> +	$(LD) $(LDFLAGS) $(LDEXEFLAGS) $(LD_O) $(CHECKASMOBJS)
>>>> $(FF_STATIC_DEP_LIBS) $(EXTRALIBS-avcodec) $(EXTRALIBS-avfilter)
>>>> $(EXTRALIBS-avformat) $(EXTRALIBS-avutil) $(EXTRALIBS-swresample)
>>>> $(EXTRALIBS)
>>>
>>> This is not the correct fix. We currently only need to link to avcodec,
>>> avfilter and avutil here, which may or may not depend on other fflibs.
>>> Seeing swresample there already hints that this line got duct tape fixes
>>> as linking failures popped up. How long until someone gets a linking
>>> failure pointing to swscale or postproc, seeing avfilter may link to it
>>> depending on enabled filters, much like it does with avformat?
>>>
>>> The *_FFLIBS variables in config.mak list these dependencies per lib,
>>> and should be used to assemble a proper linking command here.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>  checkasm: $(CHECKASM)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
>>> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
>>> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
>>>
>>
>> Try patchset without it and than complain instead.
>
> I'm not saying it's not needed, I'm saying it's not the correct way to
> fix the linking failure the following patches would introduce.

And how do you know that?, without even providing alternative?