Re: [SoX-devel] RFC - portability fixes for sox.h

[Doug C. <idi...@us...>]

Thanks, Thor. I definitely missed some uses of int24_t in my first
patch. I'll check more carefully to fix them in alsa and anywhere else
they are used.

The issue in sox_i.h is a bit more complicated. I'll have to puzzle
over that a bit more to figure out what is happening. Is this on a
64-bit build? Does it occur for all .c files, or just for adpcms.c?

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Thor Andreassen <ta...@to...> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:12:38AM -0700, Doug Cook wrote:
>> Feedback requested regarding attached patch: portability fixes for
>> sox.h. Changes to sox.h shown inline for convenience. The remainder of
>> patch is attached. As always, comments are greatly appreciated.
>
> With my limited knowledge of portability issues, these changes seem
> reasonable to me. However I couldn't compile sox after patching.
>
> The first error was the following, which I'm not entirely sure what to
> do about, so I commented line 54 out:
>
> In file included from adpcms.c:18:
> sox_i.h:54: warning: division by zero
> sox_i.h:54: error: enumerator value for
> 'assert_static__OFF_T_BUILD_PROBLEM' is not an integer constant
>
> After that gcc complained about int24_t and other types in alsa.c, the
> attached patch switches to sox_int24_t etc. instead. After that it
> compiles and the tests I've tried work as expected.
>
> [...]
>
> --
> best regards
> Thor Andreassen
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet the
> growing manageability and security demands of your customers. Businesses
> are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology - will your software
> be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker
> today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmar
> _______________________________________________
> SoX-devel mailing list
> SoX...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-devel
>
>