From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:60446)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <martin@duskware.de>) id 1UVR2T-0003X5-R0
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:37:05 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <martin@duskware.de>) id 1UVR2Q-0007ST-Bt
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:37:01 -0400
Received: from mail.duskware.de ([2001:16e0:101:291::144]:57332)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <martin@duskware.de>) id 1UVR2Q-0007S3-5E
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:36:58 -0400
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 20:36:55 +0200
From: Martin Husemann <martin@duskware.de>
Message-ID: <20130425183655.GA983@mail.duskware.de>
References: <20130425064701.GA9899@mail.duskware.de>
	<51790742.1050906@twiddle.net> <517931E6.1060709@redhat.com>
	<51796350.9080306@twiddle.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <51796350.9080306@twiddle.net>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Git head build problem (popcountl vs. system
	headers)
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 06:09:36PM +0100, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 2013-04-25 14:38, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> >><strings.h> is the K&R header supplanted by ISO <string.h>.
> >>Is there any good reason that we're including it at all?
> >
> >- <strings.h> is a portable SUS/POSIX header:
> >
> >http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/strings.h.html
> 
> Huh.  Ok, fine, but what do we think we're using out of it that
> isn't in <string.h>?

Ok, I can fix the namespace issue (which is real) easily.
But this still leaves two questions open:

 - why not use an unsigned return value for your homegrown version?
 - would it be preferable to use official/optimized versions if
   available?

Thanks,

Martin