From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:40220)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <sw@weilnetz.de>) id 1SYtwK-0008MM-3c
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 May 2012 03:00:29 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <sw@weilnetz.de>) id 1SYtwI-0004R4-6T
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 May 2012 03:00:27 -0400
Received: from v220110690675601.yourvserver.net ([78.47.199.172]:58253)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <sw@weilnetz.de>) id 1SYtwI-0004Qc-0g
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 May 2012 03:00:26 -0400
Message-ID: <4FC32287.2060206@weilnetz.de>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 09:00:23 +0200
From: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1338138128-53411-1-git-send-email-andreas.faerber@web.de>
	<4FC3200E.8040005@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FC3200E.8040005@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-1.1?] slirp: Avoid redefining
	MAX_TCPOPTLEN
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: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= <andreas.faerber@web.de>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Jan Kiszka (maintainer:SLIRP)" <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>

Am 28.05.2012 08:49, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> Il 27/05/2012 19:02, Andreas F=C3=A4rber ha scritto:
>> MAX_TCPOPTLEN is being defined as 32. Darwin has it as 40, causing a
>> warning. The value is only used to declare an array, into which curren=
tly
>> 4 bytes are written at most. It should therefore be acceptable to adop=
t
>> the host's definition.

Can we be sure that there will be never a build environment
which defines MAX_TCPOPTLENto a value less than 4?

If not, either the preprocessor or an assertion should test
that, or we could use QEMU_MAX_TCPOPTLEN or SLIRP_MAX_TCPOPTLEN.

Regards,

Stefan W.