[FFmpeg-devel] [FFmpeg-cvslog] avutil/cuda_check: avoid pointlessly exporting same symbol from two libraries

[Carl Eugen Hoyos]

2019-02-14 23:17 GMT+01:00, Timo Rothenpieler <timo at rothenpieler.org>:
> On 14.02.2019 19:59, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>> 2019-02-14 18:21 GMT+01:00, Hendrik Leppkes <h.leppkes at gmail.com>:
>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 4:51 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Am 14.02.2019 um 13:39 schrieb Timo Rothenpieler <git at videolan.org>:
>>>>>
>>>>> ffmpeg | branch: master | Timo Rothenpieler <timo at rothenpieler.org> |
>>>>> Fri Feb  8 22:47:01 2019 +0100|
>>>>> [15c6390139096b7e7634bf0f6aaab1cd8b3aa509] | committer: Timo
>>>>> Rothenpieler
>>>>>
>>>>> avutil/cuda_check: avoid pointlessly exporting same symbol from two
>>>>> libraries
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://git.videolan.org/gitweb.cgi/ffmpeg.git/?a=commit;h=15c6390139096b7e7634bf0f6aaab1cd8b3aa509
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> libavcodec/Makefile     |  6 +++---
>>>>> libavcodec/cuda_check.c |  1 -
>>>>> libavutil/Makefile      |  2 +-
>>>>
>>>>> libavutil/cuda_check.c  | 45
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Apart from breaking compilation doesn’t this also break ABI?
>
> I got reports about this breaking compilation in its old state, which
> caused me to to turn it into a static inline header-only function.
>
> For my this compiles and works fine, is there any constellation/compiler
> where it doesn't?

You changed libavfilter but didn't commit (I guess), please mention
ticket #7735.
(I didn't test myself, sorry if there is no issue!)

>>> No, this entire mess with duplicated ff_ symbols is specifically to
>>> avoid having to include it in the ABI.
>>
>> But old libavcodec does not work with new libavutil now or am I wrong?
>
> Is that really a thing we expect or advertise to work? It does not seem
> sane and I'd expect a lot of other things to explode.

We don't "advertise" it but it is certainly expected from any half-sane
project.

>> In any case, shouldn't the function have another name if it is static
>> now?
>
> No idea if there is any naming convention for static inline header-only
> functions. I kept it as is to avoid having to touch even more files, but
> renaming it is of course no big deal.

I thought that "ff_" is not for static functions.

Carl Eugen