Compiler: * g++-4.7.real (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.7.2-2ubuntu1) 4.7.2 * GNU gold (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu 2.22.90.20120924) 1.11 Build options: --enable-debug --disable-optimize 0:57.00 /usr/bin/ld.gold.real: error: read-only segment has dynamic relocations 0:57.00 /home/mrbkap/work/main/mozilla/content/media/webrtc/MediaEngine.h:158: error: undefined reference to 'mozilla::MediaEngine::DEFAULT_169_VIDEO_WIDTH' 0:57.00 /home/mrbkap/work/main/mozilla/content/media/webrtc/MediaEngine.h:158: error: undefined reference to 'mozilla::MediaEngine::DEFAULT_43_VIDEO_WIDTH' 0:57.00 /home/mrbkap/work/main/mozilla/content/media/webrtc/MediaEngine.h:163: error: undefined reference to 'mozilla::MediaEngine::DEFAULT_169_VIDEO_HEIGHT' 0:57.00 /home/mrbkap/work/main/mozilla/content/media/webrtc/MediaEngine.h:163: error: undefined reference to 'mozilla::MediaEngine::DEFAULT_43_VIDEO_HEIGHT' This appears to be a pretty common problem: static const integers with no definition (only a declaration in the class) being used in ternary expressions.

Comment on attachment 8414017 [details] [diff] [review] Patch Review of attachment 8414017 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ::: content/media/webrtc/MediaEngine.h @@ +154,5 @@ > } > private: > static int32_t GetDefWidth(bool aHD = false) { > + return aHD ? +MediaEngine::DEFAULT_169_VIDEO_WIDTH : > + +MediaEngine::DEFAULT_43_VIDEO_WIDTH; This is confusing to the reader (and someone may try to undo it). Add a comment as in the other bug 1007xxx, and I suggest if (aHD) { return MediaEngine::DEFAULT_169_VIDEO_WIDTH; } return MediaEngine::DEFAULT_43_VIDEO_WIDTH; with normal brace styling, of course. If so, r+ @@ +159,5 @@ > } > > static int32_t GetDefHeight(bool aHD = false) { > + return aHD ? +MediaEngine::DEFAULT_169_VIDEO_HEIGHT : > + +MediaEngine::DEFAULT_43_VIDEO_HEIGHT; ditto

FWIW the '+' trick is used here http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5446005/why-dont-static-member-variables-play-well-with-the-ternary-operator In either case I think this warrants a comment. This seems to be a problem with GCC (arguably). See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13795#c3

Note that GCC 4.8.2 (Fedora 19) does not show this problem, and we don't see it on the builders. All the reports recently have been for Ubuntu running 4.7. glandium: we're fixing this, but is this something we should be avoiding, or should we be telling people to update GCC? Just to verify for the future.

The instance of this problem that I reported in bug 1002844 is with LLVM 5.1, so this is not GCC-specific.

> glandium: we're fixing this, but is this something we should be avoiding, or > should we be telling people to update GCC? Just to verify for the future. The former.

Comment on attachment 8415534 [details] [diff] [review] For checkin Review of attachment 8415534 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- r=me + forward from jesup