From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org [79.124.17.100]) by master.gitmailbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47EE44939C for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2024 19:46:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97FA368D147; Thu, 8 Feb 2024 21:46:22 +0200 (EET) Received: from w4.tutanota.de (w4.tutanota.de [81.3.6.165]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C30B968CA4C for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2024 21:46:15 +0200 (EET) Received: from tutadb.w10.tutanota.de (unknown [192.168.1.10]) by w4.tutanota.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 639151060307 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2024 19:46:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1707421575; s=s1; d=lynne.ee; h=From:From:To:To:Subject:Subject:Content-Description:Content-ID:Content-Type:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:Date:In-Reply-To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Message-ID:Reply-To:References:References:Sender; bh=X4Y5oz57uL0keXVnTb0y/sAiqf1lu2rV3Zpy0mWFPUU=; b=Idq7NGgrRvY547s5cO+GGATIBEzk002f0lfU0ivLAaLuJgqUy8b+p2c1pEJvjLG0 Yh3yTS/4ty5ybA2sDmru7P3FmPPnVlCzLwA/LWNz//2c2+WHY9STMizD4gRIvr3iObH KSpVTmtWZTHwYGYZERk+TFApgUMKm7He4Pf5hi2dqvqzXsQZKAHwfYxL1LOt36oJSCD 9s+a2dZXYEFo9zqplRNIdqPVK0K8Dn9gd2yXvl+Knhqe8mwZ1E7kOmtlzm/yxC/epdf JyaXaUnv/gc8Yi2F4Qb6eM6tWDooHr6qcWcagXobAygiiUzhGtCekyPXMvQrT7t1MYq mEIWNqxXeQ== Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 20:46:15 +0100 (CET) From: Lynne To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <0101018d84ea30db-c4e65518-ce86-436d-8a69-df75847f7c8d-000000@us-west-2.amazonses.com> <1CBFE199-B1ED-47B5-BD97-7DA715EAB55B@cosmin.at> <0101018d8568a406-3e21bde1-a8ac-477a-a2fa-05be3c8461f4-000000@us-west-2.amazonses.com> <8C790A7E-A236-4413-A4EB-AFE2F91E96A8@cosmin.at> <0101018d86255500-5b78df10-2b31-45ae-8a0a-3965f641453f-000000@us-west-2.amazonses.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 2/2] Require compilers to support C17. X-BeenThere: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: FFmpeg development discussions and patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org Sender: "ffmpeg-devel" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: Feb 8, 2024, 20:05 by jamrial@gmail.com: > On 2/8/2024 3:52 PM, Sean McGovern wrote: > >> Hi developers, >> >> On Wed, Feb 7, 2024, 23:30 Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024, at 01:36, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel wrote: >>> >>>>> There were simply no objections to moving to C11. >>>>> The C17 plan came about later because it has important bugfixes. >>>>> It doesn't really matter as compilers backported the new behaviour to >>>>> >>> C11 >>> >>>>> (or rather, they consistently had the same behaviour, but now it became >>>>> >>> a standard). >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> There were no objections to C11, however C17 was brought up and there >>>> were objections that it's likely too soon and I believe JB proposed >>>> holding off for a year on C17 (while adopting C11 immediately), which >>>> >>> >>> My recommendation is still this: >>> - move to C11 now >>> - activate C17 on some Fate/CI targets >>> - recommend C17 compilers modes >>> - move to C17 at this mid-year when 7.1 is branched (LTS if we follow our >>> plans) >>> >> >> >> I like this approach. It's a shame we can't get metrics on who might be >> genuinely affected by a direct move to C17. >> >> I'd be more than willing to host one or more FATE nodes with C17 turned on. >> Do let me know if this is desirable. >> > > At least for GCC, -std=c11 is the same as -std=c17 except for the __STDC_VERSION__ value. As in, apparently all the fixes are implemented either way. And as far as i understand it, we would require c11 but use c17 if present (Meaning, test std=c17, fallback to std=c11, abort if not possible), so all FATE instances using a relatively recent compiler will invariably use c17. > > What we would need is instances with old compilers, pre-2017, to get actual c11 testing. > We have plenty of old compilers on FATE, don't we? I think the point of bumping the build-time requirements is to get rid of them, and maybe we could use the chance to also get higher-quality metrics on whether we can use the chance to reenable stuff like tree vectorization again without old compilers miscompiling. I could live with C11 for 7.0, but I would prefer to bump to C17 soon after this release is made, rather than waiting for the middle of the year to have to discuss this again. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".