[vlc-devel] [PATCH 2/2] Work around the lack of dirfd()

[Brad Smith]

On 28/02/12 9:14 AM, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:49:44 +0000, Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński
> <maciej at opencsw.org>  wrote:
>> 2012/2/28 Rémi Denis-Courmont<remi at remlab.net>:
>>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:37:28 +0000, Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński
>>> <maciej at opencsw.org>  wrote:
>>>> 2012/2/28 Brad Smith<brad at comstyle.com>:
>>>>> Solaris does not have posix_memalign(). This will help..
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking that a better approach would be to test for
>>>> posix_memalign and define it when missing. What do you think?
>>>
>>> It is not optional. Why would we test for something that is always
> there
>>> except on broken systems that we do not support?
>>
>> Rémi,
>>
>> Let's step back a bit. If you visit the VideoLAN website[1], you'll
>> see "Works on most platforms: Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, Unix..." on
>> the front page.
>
> Unix meaning POSIX. Thank you for proving my point.
>
> Also Linux support is POSIX wherever applicable (I mean, Linux specifics
> are only used in areas out of POSIX coverage). Thing is, we do our share of
> making VLC portable across Unices, rather than only Linux (besides Windows
> and MacOS). Implementing POSIX correctly is _not_ our share, that is the
> job of the operating system vendor.
>
>> Of course, I
>> could write a set of own unportable patches, but I'd much rather work
>> with the VLC developers to make the sources work on all platforms
>> including Solaris 10, without any need to do further patching. Does it
>> sound good to you, or do you have a different suggestion?
>
> There is a technical reason why we don't have a feature check for this
> (see other posts).

Ok, I was worried that with a header like that that there might be a corner
case that it would break since I didn't notice any feature tests being used
but only OS checks and compiler revision check macros. So please use the
other diff I didn't prefer to use memalign() on Solaris. I'd prefer a 
feature
check but if that isn't possible this will have to do.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.