On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On 27 July 2012 15:27, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>> The GCC manual says "Weak symbols are supported for ELF targets, >>>> and also for a.out targets when using the GNU assembler and linker". >>>> Have you tested this on Windows and MacOSX ? >>> >>> Weak symbols are supposed to be supported by mingw32. >>> >>> I have no idea about MacOS X. >>> >>> I have no way to develop or test for MacOS X using free software so I >>> honestly don't care about it. >> >> My approach to this is to avoid non-standard things > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99#Implementations > > So unless you plan on compiling QEMU with xlc, pgi, or icc, I don't > think relying on "standard things" really helps. LLVM/Clang should definitely be in the plan. > > QEMU doesn't support C99, it supports GCC. There's no point in > debating about whether we should rely on extensions or not. We already > do--extensively. Not so extensively. There are a few extensions for which there is no simple alternative (like QEMU_PACKED) but other compilers likely need similar extensions. Then there are other extensions (like :? without middle expression) which can be easily avoided. We should avoid to use the non-standard extensions whenever possible. > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori > > >> -- if I >> write a patch which is pretty much standard C then it's the >> platform's problem if it mishandles it. If I write a patch >> that uses a compiler-specific or OS-specific thing then I >> have to also provide the relevant alternatives...so I try >> to avoid doing that :-) >> >> -- PMM > > -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list