[MPlayer-dev-eng] [PATCH] OpenDML AVI2.0 read support

[D Richard Felker III]

On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 05:51:14PM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> >>Given stated policy, I'd like to ask if there is any reason - other
> >>than "no one noticed enough to point it out" - why these made it
> >>in without being changed to mp_msg() or similar calls? For that
> >>matter, would there be any problem with changing them, if someone
> >>wanted to do the work of tracking them all down?
> >
> >They should all be changed. The only reason they haven't is laziness.
> >BTW, when changing them one needs to decide which message level to
> >put them at, not just blindly search-and-replace.
> 
> Well enough, then. I'd be willing to volunteer for at least some of the
> work, though I'd need to read up on the various message levels and what
> belongs in each...
> 
> Should the printf() calls be changed in things like libavcodec,
> libfaad2, mp3lib and so forth?

Yes, most certainly! Any lib that calls printf is just plain broken.
stdout does not belong to libs!!

> I'd be reluctant to do it with
> libavcodec,

It should have already been done with lavc (changing printf to
av_log). If there are left-over printf's, they should be changed asap.
MPlayer should implement av_log with a call to mp_msg at the
appropriate level(s).

> because I update that from its own CVS almost daily so the
> changes would be lost, but with ostensibly-external things which are
> included in MPlayer CVS directly the question becomes less obvious.
> (Plainly, however, the calls in mp_msg.[ch] itself should be left
> alone.)

Yes. :)

> >If you do blind s&r now, it would work ok, but then later on when
> >someone wants to fix the message levels, it'll be difficult to figure
> >out which messages already have intentionally-assigned levels and
> >which don't.
> 
> Adam Rice's suggestion of defining FIXME_MESSAGE_LEVEL seems like a
> workable solution to this; even if whoever changes the original printf()
> doesn't intend to do blind search-and-replace, it could be useful if he
> or she (or me) gets lazy.

Agreed!

Rich