From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Gc4EF-0004GY-Rz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:08:51 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Gc4EE-0004En-FX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:08:50 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gc4EE-0004Eg-BZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:08:50 -0400 Received: from [71.162.243.5] (helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1Gc4EE-0003kI-3s for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:08:50 -0400 From: Rob Landley Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4 Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:08:23 -0400 References: <45391B22.1050608@palmsource.com> <200610222127.08346.rob@landley.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200610231408.23588.rob@landley.net> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Sunday 22 October 2006 9:45 pm, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > I was pondered trying to get tcc to build qemu, > > (since tcc only supports x86 targets, this is not really a solution.) No, it supports arm as well. (And I merged a recent patch to support arm EABI.) I remember hearing about a PPC patch (although I never tracked that down), and I was looking into what I needed to do to make it support x86-64. > > and even made a mercurial copy [...] But Fabrice showed back up on > > tuesday and checked in a patch, and now I've got a fork that's out of > > sync with mainline. > > I do not really know Mercurial, but it should make it really easy to merge > two branches (as far as I have been told). That's the general idea, yes. (In this case what was merged is a reworking of a patch I already merged, which I could essentially ignore for now.) The problem is at a higher level: I'd created a fork based of a project that looked abandoned, but it turned out not to be abandoned, so the fork looks like a bad idea in retrospect. *shrug* No shortage of other projects to work on. (Like QEMU: I still haven't managed to install the x86_64 version of ubuntu. An older version hung when it got to the desktop, in last week's version I couldn't even get the bios to bring up grub. Need to thump on it again, but I'm not quite sure how to debug this.) Rob -- "Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery