On 16 December 2015 at 09:52, Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk at iki.fi> wrote: > 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 +- >> > > src/modules/echo-cancel/webrtc.cc | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++-- >> > > ---------------- >> > > 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], >> > > AS_HELP_STRING([--enable-webrtc-aec], [Enable the optional >> > > WebRTC-based echo canceller])) >> > > >> > > AS_IF([test "x$enable_webrtc_aec" != "xno"], >> > > - [PKG_CHECK_MODULES(WEBRTC, [ webrtc-audio-processing ], >> > > [HAVE_WEBRTC=1], [HAVE_WEBRTC=0])], >> > > + [PKG_CHECK_MODULES(WEBRTC, [ webrtc-audio-processing > 0.1 >> > > ], [HAVE_WEBRTC=1], [HAVE_WEBRTC=0])], >> > >> > I think it would be better to use >= 0.2 (or whatever is the >> > minimum >> > required version). >> >> Sure, I can do that. Was easier to test this way before doing a 0.2 >> release of webrtc-audio-processing. >> >> > > [HAVE_WEBRTC=0]) >> > > >> > > AS_IF([test "x$enable_webrtc_aec" = "xyes" && test >> > > "x$HAVE_WEBRTC" = "x0"], >> > > diff --git a/src/Makefile.am b/src/Makefile.am >> > > index f1bd38d..533b646 100644 >> > > --- a/src/Makefile.am >> > > +++ b/src/Makefile.am >> > > @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ AM_CPPFLAGS = \ >> > > -DPULSE_LOCALEDIR=\"$(localedir)\" >> > > AM_CFLAGS = \ >> > > $(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? The library IIRC (will double-check and update the commit message). -- Arun
