[PR #948] [MERGED] [FIX] Implicit declaration of these functions throws warning during build #1773

New Issue

claunia · 2026-01-29T17:18:29Z

claunia commented

2026-01-29 17:18:29 +00:00

📋 Pull Request Information

Original PR: https://github.com/CCExtractor/ccextractor/pull/948
Author: @krushanbauva
Created: 2/28/2018
Status: ✅ Merged
Merged: 2/28/2018
Merged by: @cfsmp3

Base: master ← Head: master

📝 Commits (2)

4ac50b2 Declare gf_lang_find function in isom_write.c
1f316d5 Declare gf_lang_get_3cc function in isom_write.c

📊 Changes

1 file changed (+4 additions, -0 deletions)

View changed files

📝 src/gpacmp4/isom_write.c (+4 -0)

📄 Description

Please prefix your pull request with one of the following: [FEATURE] [FIX] [IMPROVEMENT].

In raising this pull request, I confirm the following (please check boxes):

[x ] I have read and understood the contributors guide.
[ x] I have checked that another pull request for this purpose does not exist.
[x ] I have considered, and confirmed that this submission will be valuable to others.
[x ] I accept that this submission may not be used, and the pull request closed at the will of the maintainer.
[x ] I give this submission freely, and claim no ownership to its content.

My familiarity with the project is as follows (check one):

I have never used CCExtractor.
[ x] I have used CCExtractor just a couple of times.
[ x] I absolutely love CCExtractor, but have not contributed previously.
I am an active contributor to CCExtractor.

Should I declare these functions in a header file and include the header file rather than doing it this way?

P.S.: I used the build script on my linux machine which throws warning

_{🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.}

## 📋 Pull Request Information **Original PR:** https://github.com/CCExtractor/ccextractor/pull/948 **Author:** [@krushanbauva](https://github.com/krushanbauva) **Created:** 2/28/2018 **Status:** ✅ Merged **Merged:** 2/28/2018 **Merged by:** [@cfsmp3](https://github.com/cfsmp3) **Base:** `master` ← **Head:** `master` --- ### 📝 Commits (2) - [`4ac50b2`](https://github.com/CCExtractor/ccextractor/commit/4ac50b2f9c3621a2659f337068dd3727c2a940c5) Declare gf_lang_find function in isom_write.c - [`1f316d5`](https://github.com/CCExtractor/ccextractor/commit/1f316d53575991dcb6ca1d07ffaea2b01e030c6c) Declare gf_lang_get_3cc function in isom_write.c ### 📊 Changes **1 file changed** (+4 additions, -0 deletions) <details> <summary>View changed files</summary> 📝 `src/gpacmp4/isom_write.c` (+4 -0) </details> ### 📄 Description Please prefix your pull request with one of the following: **[FEATURE]** **[FIX]** **[IMPROVEMENT]**. **In raising this pull request, I confirm the following (please check boxes):** - [x ] I have read and understood the [contributors guide](https://github.com/CCExtractor/ccextractor/blob/master/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md). - [ x] I have checked that another pull request for this purpose does not exist. - [x ] I have considered, and confirmed that this submission will be valuable to others. - [x ] I accept that this submission may not be used, and the pull request closed at the will of the maintainer. - [x ] I give this submission freely, and claim no ownership to its content. **My familiarity with the project is as follows (check one):** - [ ] I have never used CCExtractor. - [ x] I have used CCExtractor just a couple of times. - [ x] I absolutely love CCExtractor, but have not contributed previously. - [ ] I am an active contributor to CCExtractor. --- Should I declare these functions in a header file and include the header file rather than doing it this way? P.S.: I used the build script on my linux machine which throws warning --- <sub>🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.</sub>

claunia added the pull-request label 2026-01-29 17:18:29 +00:00

claunia referenced this issue

2026-01-29 17:22:29 +00:00

[PR #1773] [MERGED] [FIX]: Restore XMLTV generation for ATSC EIT/VCT streams and correct EIT bounds checks #2500

claunia referenced this issue

2026-01-29 17:22:29 +00:00

[PR #1773] [FIX]: Restore XMLTV generation for ATSC EIT/VCT streams and correct EIT bounds checks #2503

Sign in to join this conversation.