On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> 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. > > weak symbols are supported by clang. > >>> 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. > > I disagree. I don't see a point to it. QEMU has never been routinely > built on anything other than GCC. Why go to a lot of trouble to support > a user base that doesn't exist? > > If someone comes along and actively maintains support for another > compiler, we can revisit. But otherwise, there's no practical reason to > avoid extensions. Because it's more compliant to standards. There's also very little benefit from using the nonessential extensions. > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori > >> >>> >>> 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