On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 27 July 2012 16:31, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> 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. >> >> QEMU doesn't support C99, it supports GCC. > > OK, you could perhaps rephrase that as 'mainstream' rather than > 'standards-compliant'. I don't think we need to be strict C99; > I do think we have more than one working host OS and that patches > that use functionality that's documented not to work on all gcc > targets ought to come attached to a statement that they've been > tested. (MacOSX isn't actually in MAINTAINERS as a host so is > a bit of a red herring. Windows is listed.) I'd also like to avoid a world where everything only targets GCC on x86_64 on Linux with KVM. "Embrace and extend" may also be seen to apply to GCC extensions. > > So if you really like weak symbols, go ahead. I'm just saying > you're imposing a bigger testing burden on yourself than if > you handled this some other way. > > (I do think it would be nice to care about building with CLANG, > because there are some static analysis tools that we would > then be able to run. That doesn't mean dropping all GCC > extensions, though, because CLANG does support a lot of them.) > > -- PMM > -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list