[Qemu-devel] gcc

[Qemu-devel] gcc

[Rick Vernam]

any comments on the current status of moving beyond dependency on GCC 3.3.6?

no need to go into details of 'why' on my behalf, so spare yourself the time 
on that... :-)

thanks

[Qemu-devel] Re: gcc

[Antti P Miettinen]

Rick Vernam <rickv@hobi.com> writes:
> any comments on the current status of moving beyond dependency on GCC 3.3.6?

Sorry for a vague ignorant question, but would the gcc-4 issues be
affected in any way if the ops were inside a big function (use labels
to find them) vs the current use of separate functions?

--
http://www.iki.fi/~ananaza/

Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: gcc

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 04/12/2007, Antti P Miettinen <ananaza@iki.fi> wrote:
> Rick Vernam <rickv@hobi.com> writes:
> > any comments on the current status of moving beyond dependency on GCC 3.3.6?
>
> Sorry for a vague ignorant question, but would the gcc-4 issues be
> affected in any way if the ops were inside a big function (use labels
> to find them) vs the current use of separate functions?

They might likely be affected but it would be an equally fragile and
compiler-dependent solution and I think not worth putting the time it
would take to adapt dyngen to this.
Regards

Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: gcc

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Antti P Miettinen wrote:

> Rick Vernam <rickv@hobi.com> writes:
> > any comments on the current status of moving beyond dependency on GCC 
> > 3.3.6?
> 
> Sorry for a vague ignorant question, but would the gcc-4 issues be 
> affected in any way if the ops were inside a big function (use labels to 
> find them) vs the current use of separate functions?

It might be a bit outdated, but the basic ideas still hold valid in 
http://libvncserver.sourceforge.net/qemu/qemu-porting.html.

So no, you cannot have the ops inside a big function.

Hth,
Dscho

Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: gcc

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Antti P Miettinen wrote:
> 
> > Rick Vernam <rickv@hobi.com> writes:
> > > any comments on the current status of moving beyond dependency on 
> > > GCC 3.3.6?
> > 
> > Sorry for a vague ignorant question, but would the gcc-4 issues be 
> > affected in any way if the ops were inside a big function (use labels 
> > to find them) vs the current use of separate functions?
> 
> It might be a bit outdated, but the basic ideas still hold valid in 
> http://libvncserver.sourceforge.net/qemu/qemu-porting.html.
> 
> So no, you cannot have the ops inside a big function.

I realise that I was not quite clear enough... gcc4 has this annoying 
behaviour that it occasionally puts in return statements in the middle of 
the function.  There seems to be no option to prevent that.  And this 
behaviour is not helped by having one function rather than many.

Hth,
Dscho

Re: [Qemu-devel] gcc

[Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon]

On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 08:20:28PM -0600, Rick Vernam wrote:
> any comments on the current status of moving beyond dependency on GCC 3.3.6?

you meant dependency on GCC < 4 right?, I use gcc 3.4.6 and there shouldn't be
any reasons AFAIK that wouldn't work.

Carlo

Re: [Qemu-devel] gcc

[Rick Vernam]

On Tuesday 04 December 2007 06:35:53 pm Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 08:20:28PM -0600, Rick Vernam wrote:
> > any comments on the current status of moving beyond dependency on GCC
> > 3.3.6?
>
> you meant dependency on GCC < 4 right?
yeah..thanks.

> I use gcc 3.4.6 and there shouldn't be any reasons AFAIK that wouldn't work.
yeah, I keep 3.4.6 around, too.

>
> Carlo