[PATCH v2 01/25] echo-cancel: Update webrtc-audio-processing usage to new API

[tanuk@xxxxxx (Tanu Kaskinen)]

On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 09:48 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> On 16 December 2015 at 09:38, Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk at iki.fi> wrote:
> > (I'm just glancing through, this is not a proper review.)
> > 
> > On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 09:09 +0530, arun at accosted.net wrote:
> > > From: Arun Raghavan <git at arunraghavan.net>
> > > 
> > > ---
> > >  configure.ac                      |  2 +-
> > >  src/Makefile.am                   |  2 +-
> > > Â src/modules/echo-cancel/webrtc.cc | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > ----------------
> > > Â 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
> > > index b9cd3d1..26c3e29 100644
> > > --- a/configure.ac
> > > +++ b/configure.ac
> > > @@ -1371,7 +1371,7 @@ AC_ARG_ENABLE([webrtc-aec],
> > > Â Â Â Â Â AS_HELP_STRING([--enable-webrtc-aec], [Enable the optional
> > > WebRTC-based echo canceller]))
> > > 
> > > Â AS_IF([test "x$enable_webrtc_aec" != "xno"],
> > > -Â Â Â Â [PKG_CHECK_MODULES(WEBRTC, [ webrtc-audio-processing ],
> > > [HAVE_WEBRTC=1], [HAVE_WEBRTC=0])],
> > > +Â Â Â Â [PKG_CHECK_MODULES(WEBRTC, [ webrtc-audio-processing > 0.1
> > > ], [HAVE_WEBRTC=1], [HAVE_WEBRTC=0])],
> > 
> > I think it would be better to use >= 0.2 (or whatever is the
> > minimum
> > required version).
> 
> Sure, I can do that. Was easier to test this way before doing a 0.2
> release of webrtc-audio-processing.
> 
> > > Â Â Â Â Â [HAVE_WEBRTC=0])
> > > 
> > > Â AS_IF([test "x$enable_webrtc_aec" = "xyes" && test
> > > "x$HAVE_WEBRTC" = "x0"],
> > > diff --git a/src/Makefile.am b/src/Makefile.am
> > > index f1bd38d..533b646 100644
> > > --- a/src/Makefile.am
> > > +++ b/src/Makefile.am
> > > @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ AM_CPPFLAGS = \
> > > Â Â Â Â Â Â -DPULSE_LOCALEDIR=\"$(localedir)\"
> > > Â AM_CFLAGS = \
> > > Â Â Â Â Â Â $(PTHREAD_CFLAGS)
> > > -AM_CXXFLAGS = $(AM_CFLAGS)
> > > +AM_CXXFLAGS = $(AM_CFLAGS) -std=c++11
> > 
> > This seems like material for a separate patch.
> 
> This is needed for the code to compile at all, is why I included it
> here.

Ok, makes sense. It would be good to note the reason in the commit
message, though. Does the requirement for c++11 come from the library
or from the code changes in this patch?

--Â 
Tanu