On 12 November 2013 17:04, Anthony Liguori <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > QEMU has always been intimately tied to GCC. Heck, it all started as > a giant GCC hack relying on entirely undocumented behavior (dyngen's > disassembly of functions). It has historically. Blue Swirl put in a lot of work to remove those dependencies. I'd rather we didn't let them drift back in again, especially for really small reasons. > There's nothing intrinsically bad about being tied to GCC. If you > were making argument that we could do it a different way and the > result would be as nice or nicer, then it wouldn't be a discussion. I really think this patch is fundamentally nicer than the current code base, even if we didn't care about clang. I think relying on dead-code-elimination happening for us to compile is ugly. > But if supporting clang means we have to remove useful things, then > it's always going to be an uphill battle. I think the fundamental disagreement here is that I don't see this patch as removing anything useful. > In this case, the whole discussion is a bit silly. I'd agree with that :-) -- PMM -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
