From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58902) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bhHvM-0004Ij-8F for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2016 11:04:36 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bhHvG-0006Xo-5S for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2016 11:04:31 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:54726 helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bhHvF-0006Xj-VT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2016 11:04:26 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id u86F3CSv021351 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 11:04:25 -0400 Received: from e06smtp11.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp11.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.107]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 259yc9c7fj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 06 Sep 2016 11:04:24 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp11.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 16:04:23 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197]) by d06dlp01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E625D17D8063 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 16:06:12 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.212]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u86F4KjJ58130626 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 15:04:20 GMT Received: from d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u86F4KjB024240 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 09:04:20 -0600 Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 17:04:18 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck In-Reply-To: <20160906164908.24492fe4.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> References: <20160906074710.13495-1-cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> <20160906164908.24492fe4.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20160906170418.3c6ca8bc.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 00/38] First set of s390x patches for 2.8 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Christian Borntraeger , Alexander Graf , Jens Freimann , QEMU Developers , David Hildenbrand On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 16:49:08 +0200 Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 15:32:26 +0100 > Peter Maydell wrote: > > > On 6 September 2016 at 08:46, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > The following changes since commit e87d397e5ef66276ccc49b829527d605ca07d0ad: > > > > > > Open 2.8 development tree (2016-09-05 11:38:54 +0100) > > > > > > are available in the git repository at: > > > > > > git://github.com/cohuck/qemu tags/s390x-20160906 > > > > > > for you to fetch changes up to f216f2122519e24f57e09103ea5beb4c43f241c0: > > > > > > s390x/cpumodel: implement QMP interface "query-cpu-model-baseline" (2016-09-05 15:49:23 +0200) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > First (big) chunk of s390x updates: > > > - cpumodel support for s390x > > > - various fixes and improvements > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Hi; I'm afraid this causes compile warnings with clang, which look > > like they're flagging up a genuine bug: > > > > CC ppc-softmmu/migration/savevm.o > > /Users/pm215/src/qemu-for-merges/target-s390x/cpu_models.c:254:11: > > warning: explicitly assigning value of variable of type 'FILE *' (aka > > 'struct __sFILE *') to itself [-Wself-assign] > > f = f, > > ~ ^ ~ > > /Users/pm215/src/qemu-for-merges/target-s390x/cpu_models.c:255:15: > > warning: explicitly assigning value of variable of type > > 'fprintf_function' (aka 'int (*)(FILE *, const char *, ...)') to > > itself [-Wself-assign] > > print = print, > > ~~~~~ ^ ~~~~~ > > 2 warnings generated. > > > > Looks like you forgot the '.' on the front of the field > > names in the structure initializer. > > Ugh, yes. > > Looks trivial enough to fix up: I'll probably just do that and send a > v2. ...although gcc seems to be clever enough to just Do The Right Thing anyway, so we never noticed this...