From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ja9Sg-0003OK-3P for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:56:38 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ja9Sd-0003LN-8D for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:56:37 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ja9Sd-0003L9-3K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:56:35 -0400 Received: from hobi.com ([130.94.185.247]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ja9Sc-0005rZ-Jo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:56:34 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO ricklap) ([68.255.103.159]) (envelope-sender ) by 130.94.185.247 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 14 Mar 2008 12:55:13 -0000 From: Rick Vernam Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] CVS build error Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:56:30 -0500 References: <200803131533.46989.rickv@hobi.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200803140756.30801.rickv@hobi.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org > WTF? Rick suggested removing that configure message that you need to > explicitely override its quite sane default to refuse work with gcc4, > because at least one platform (the most common one) has problems with it. I did? where? when? You might have mis-read something. > > I was against removing this safety valve, because it does _nothing_ to > help users understand why QEmu does not compile. > > The situation now: gcc4 is not supported, but might work. configure tells > you as much, and even gives you rope to try nevertheless. but if you're not sure of the current state and you want to find out - do not ask. such questions are not taken nicely. > > The situation suggested: configure silently ignores the fact that gcc4 is > the current compiler, and in some (not at all rare) cases, the compilation > just fails without a clue. I don't know who's post you've read. Mine was essentialy this: "Is this on my end, or just the current state of things?" Please, forgive me for knowing only that it works sometimes and not others. > > So I absolutely _fail_ to understand what you thought, implying that I was > restricting platform variability. > > Sheesh, > Dscho