From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50628) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WPvDT-0005ak-Us for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:42:14 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WPvDM-0006zA-1Q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:42:07 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:14871) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WPvDL-0006z6-Pt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:41:59 -0400 Message-ID: <1395153738.2328.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> From: Marcel Apfelbaum Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:42:18 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <1395149962-31793-1-git-send-email-marcel.a@redhat.com> <1395151522.2328.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1395152830.2328.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.0] vl.c: Fix OpenBSD compilation issue due to namespace collisions List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Andreas =?ISO-8859-1?Q?F=E4rber?= , QEMU Developers , Anthony Liguori , Brad Smith On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 14:28 +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 18 March 2014 14:27, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 16:05 +0200, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote: > >> On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 13:57 +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> > I'm confused; why doesn't this just result in a compiler > >> > error in the other direction when we try to #define > >> > MACHINE in QEMU and it's already been defined by > >> > the BSD headers? > >> Maybe because there is usage of the "MACHINE" define by the BSD > >> library? (on Qemu context, of course! - meaning, it shouldn't even be > >> exposed in the first place!) > > I meant "there is *no* usage of the..." > > But we'll still see > #define MACHINE something > and then later > #define MACHINE something-else > > right? The compiler ought to complain about that, at point > of the second #define; use or otherwise of the macro isn't > relevant here. Right! Sorry. As Andreas said in IRC, BSDs do not build with -Werror > > thanks > -- PMM >