[MPlayer-cvslog] r27240 - trunk/configure

[Uoti Urpala]

On Sun, 2008-07-13 at 01:54 +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 04:21:34PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 15:07 +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 06:47:04PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 08 July 2008 at 18:11, diego wrote:
> > > > > Add -std=gnu99 to gcc CFLAGS if supported. This sets appropriate #defines to
> > 
> > > > Why the GNU dialect? 
> > > 
> > > Because uoti wanted it and thouse who where against it have left the project
> > > apparently.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > Shouldn't we aim for ISO C99 instead (-std=c99)?
> > > 
> > > depends on ones goals.
> > 
> > Did you fail to understand the reasons I gave in my earlier reply to
> > Rathann? Or do you claim those reasons are somehow inadequate?
> 
> I rather think that your reasons are awnsering a question noone asked.
> 
> Diego added -std=gnu99 to supress some warnings
> What warnings?
> Why are they there? 

At least warnings about some C99 standard functions that are not defined
by headers in C89 mode (without additional #defines at least).

> is the code which produces these warnings correct at all? 
> Should the code be changed or the warnings be silenced?

The code which produced those warnings is correct.

> Is -std=gnu99 the only way to silence them?
> is it the best way?
> Does -std=gnu99 have other effects that might negatively affect mplayer
> independant of these warnings?

Probably not the only way but the most straightforward one; we want the
code to be interpreted as C99, not C89.

> I fail to see how your smartassed-ness awnseres anything of that

What was "smart-assed" about the explanation I sent in reply to
Rathann's question?

> Its hard for me to argue about the appropriateness of -std=gnu99 without
> even a hint toward what this commit was trying to fix. Of course its not
> hard for you because you dont need to know what the issue was, you already
> have decided years ago that -std=gnu99 should be added.

You have no clue about the issue so of course you first posted ignorant
flames before even trying to understand it.

> One negative effect -std=gnu99 will likely have is that it will hide
> warnings about non-standard gnuisms.

Wrong.