From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IefAD-0006NB-9Q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 07 Oct 2007 19:03:57 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IefAA-0006Ms-PL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 07 Oct 2007 19:03:55 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IefAA-0006Mp-JK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 07 Oct 2007 19:03:54 -0400 Received: from bangui.magic.fr ([195.154.194.245]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IefAA-0008WG-03 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 07 Oct 2007 19:03:54 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (ppp-36.net-123.static.magiconline.fr [80.118.184.36]) by bangui.magic.fr (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l97N3kve021192 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 01:03:46 +0200 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] PPC build errors in CVS From: "J. Mayer" In-Reply-To: <20071007224004.GA29260@caradoc.them.org> References: <47094A70.9080800@earthlink.net> <1191793552.9976.53.camel@rapid> <20071007224004.GA29260@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 01:03:51 +0200 Message-Id: <1191798231.9976.58.camel@rapid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 On Sun, 2007-10-07 at 18:40 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 11:45:51PM +0200, J. Mayer wrote: > > I also took a look in C 99 specification and I saw no restriction on > > writing: > > do_this(a, > > #ifdef _this_is_defined > > b, > > #else > > c, > > #endif > > d); > > when do_this() is defined as a macro. > > > > May I suggest you to use a C99 compliant compiler ? > > I don't feel like making my code less readable just because some use > > buggy compilers. (but if someone tells me what in the ISO C > > specification, that I would have missed, explicitelly forbids this). > > I'm pretty sure that it was either forbidden or unspecified, at least > in C89. I didn't check C99. OK, then... I'm trying a work-around that should not make the code too ugly... [...] -- J. Mayer Never organized