Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006, Rob Landley wrote:
>   
>> Basically, gcc changed in a way that broke qemu.
>>     
> Yes, they did. But even if I understand your frustration (which I share), 
> I also understand the gcc people. After all, using gcc to create the 
> blocks for dynamic translation is a _hack_.
Yes, it is a hack.  And short of some guarantees from gcc, (which we 
don't have), it is destined to be an ongoing issue.
> The result of a compiler run, 
> though, should work and run -- as fast as possible. So basically, the gcc 
> people want to achieve a different goal from what we misuse their program 
> for.
Creating a qemu variant target for gcc would address both of these 
concerns.  It would introduce new ones, of course, but it would address 
these two.

--rich