From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KSpFC-0008LY-Aq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 04:28:42 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KSpF7-0008CB-GV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 04:28:41 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55821 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KSpF7-0008Bt-9z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 04:28:37 -0400
Received: from relay01.mx.bawue.net ([193.7.176.67]:47899)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <ths@networkno.de>) id 1KSpF7-0001hI-D6
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 04:28:37 -0400
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:28:36 +0200
From: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] gccism's are ok?
Message-ID: <20080812082836.GA8445@networkno.de>
References: <48A03D89.3020005@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <48A03D89.3020005@redhat.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>   Hi,
> 
> Quick question:  Is it ok to use gcc-specific features in qemu?  Or will
> that break builds on some platform?
> 
> Linux obviously is gcc, MacOS X too as far I know.  MinGW on Windows is
> gcc too.  Anything else we care about?

The dyngen targets still require gcc3 to build, OTOH making qemu more
portable is valuable. I believe the policy should be "avoid compiler
extensions unless it is hard to do without".

> I'm thinking especially about the constructor attribute.  That would
> allow to make drivers self-contained, by having a register() call in a
> small constructor function ...

This idea is IMHO of dubious value. It obfuscates the control flow, and
it wouldn't work for a plugin system (where self-containedness would be
the biggest win).


Thiemo