[Ffmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Dead code cleanup - C++

[Måns Rullgård]

Diego Biurrun said:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 06:59:56PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 08:45:43AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 10:23:34AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 05:15:07AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> > > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 01:24:39PM +1030, Yuri Vilmanis wrote:
>> > > > > Removed some dead code relating to C++. As no part of the codebase
>> > > > > will ever be seen by a C++ compiler, any code protected by
>> > > > > #ifdef__cplusplus will *never* get past the preprocessor, and so can
>> > > > > be safely removed. The files in which these guards appear are not
>> > > > > valid C++ anyway, so removing these references to C++ should reduce
>> > > > > future confusion on this issue. The C++ wrapper "fobs" (or other
>> > > > > C++ wrappers I'm not aware of) can be used by anyone requiring C++
>> > > > > support.
>> > > >
>> > > > OK to apply this patch?
>> > >
>> > > all the versions should be bumped a little at least so user apps
>> > > could detect if these macros are there or not
>> > >
>> > > now about the patch itself, i have no real oppinion on this, it where
>> > > c++ people who wanted it, and now its one c++ developer who wants it
>> > > removed, i think that the people who wanted this (see svnlog i dont
>> > > remember at all) should at least get a chance to comment first
>> >
>> > Opinions are (unsurprisingly) mixed.
>> >
>> > I agree that we should have this either on all or none of our public
>> > header files and I vote for removing it everywhere for consistency.
>> > Baptiste and Reimar seem to be with me on this one.
>>
>> Michael?  Mans?
>
> Michael, you don't care about this issue?  I'll be applying this patch
> after the weekend unless I hear some objections.

I already said I wouldn't object.

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd
mru at inprovide.com