[pulseaudio-discuss] express my interests in applying GSoC 2012
dzrongg at gmail.com
Wed Mar 21 07:29:53 PDT 2012
在 2012年3月21日 下午3:21，David Henningsson <david.henningsson at canonical.com>写道：
> On 03/20/2012 03:48 PM, rong deng wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> This is Deng Zhenrong from Shanghai China, I've already used Linux as my
>> main desktop for several years. Now I would like to express my interests
>> in applying pulseaudio's projects for this year's GSoC in this mail.
> Hi Deng and welcome to PulseAudio! :-)
Thanks for replying this message.
> More contributors are always welcome. As for GSoC, I have never mentored
> anyone and won't be able to do so this summer either, so I'll let somebody
> else answer to that.
No problem. :-)
> Glancing through the ideas, I find I'm interested in several few
>> already. :) But I'd like to focus on one thing which is test/log
>> facilities for now. I'm still doing my homework on this topic and I'll
>> come up with more detailed info in later days.
>> So to get my hands dirty, I've already downloaded pulseaudio source code
>> and compile it and set it up. Now I find there's a compilation warning,
>> and here's my patch to fix it, cool :)
>> I'm attaching the patch generated from git format-patch, I'm not sure
>> whether it's OK, as I see it from the mailing list, other developers
>> send patches directly in mails. This patch is my first one to get
>> familiar with the workflow, if there's anything wrong, please tell me. :)
> As for the patch, I believe you did most things right. :-) Some people
> prefer you send the patch using "git send-email", but for me, it does not
> matter much.
OK. I'll try to use "git send-email" for later patches. I haven't set up
this mail system yet, I'll try to figure it out...
> As for using the PRI-prefixes, it seems we do not use this anywhere else
> in the code. Therefore I have two questions:
> 1) Do you think there is a risk that some compiler that we want to build
> PulseAudio under, does not support these prefixes (remember, this is not
> only used in Linux, but in Windows, Mac OS, OS/2 IIRC and others)?
No, I don't think it's a risk, as this PRI-prefix is defined in inttypes.h
header file, and according to manual, it is a standard.
> 2) Would "%llx" solve this warning equally well?
On 32-bit system, yes, but then, it's not portable.
To print uin64_t on 32 bit system, we should use %llx,
but to print it on 64 bit system, we should use %lx instead. PRI-prefix
help us handle this.
Yes, there IS another way to handle, we can explicitly
cast 'pa_channel_position_mask_t' to 'unsigned long long' and use %llx.
It's up to you guys whether it should use PRI-prefix or use this cast. I'm
OK with these both methods. :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the pulseaudio-discuss