From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>,
QEMU Trivial <qemu-trivial@nongnu.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
"patches@linaro.org" <patches@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Drop QEMU_GNUC_PREREQ() checks for gcc older than 4.1
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:11:24 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170131181124.GF20303@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA-Ggv2VGszZg0Ld3-1wm=hVe8w=4ZcQ7TDRHf5Puq88ug@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 06:00:13PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 31 January 2017 at 17:40, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:
> >
> >> We already require gcc 4.1 or newer (for the atomic
> >> support), so the fallback codepaths for older gcc
> >> versions than that are now dead code and we can
> >> just delete them.
> >>
> >> NB: clang reports itself as gcc 4.2 (regardless of
> >> clang version), so clang won't be using the fallbacks
> >> either.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
> >> ---
> >> For compatibility with clang we should probably try to avoid
> >> using QEMU_GNUC_PREREQ() and instead have something in
> >> compiler.h that abstracts away whether the test for "does
> >> the compiler support feature foo" is via a GCC version
> >> check or a clang __has_feature or whatever.
> >
> > Yes, testing for feature is better than testing a version.
> >
> > This patch reduces use of QEMU_GNUC_PREREQ roughly by half. Good.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> include/qemu/compiler.h | 8 ---
> >> include/qemu/host-utils.h | 121 ----------------------------------------------
> >> tcg/arm/tcg-target.h | 7 ---
> >> 3 files changed, 136 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/qemu/compiler.h b/include/qemu/compiler.h
> >> index 157698b..fc12e49 100644
> >> --- a/include/qemu/compiler.h
> >> +++ b/include/qemu/compiler.h
> >> @@ -24,17 +24,9 @@
> >>
> >> #define QEMU_NORETURN __attribute__ ((__noreturn__))
> >>
> >> -#if QEMU_GNUC_PREREQ(3, 4)
> >> #define QEMU_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT __attribute__((warn_unused_result))
> >> -#else
> >> -#define QEMU_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT
> >> -#endif
> >
> > Should we inline this macro?
>
> We have attributes which we wrap in QEMU_ macros already
> even though they always expand to the same thing:
> QEMU_NORETURN and QEMU_ALIGNED. I'm happy to leave these
> to follow that pattern. (If you wanted to send a patch
> series that uninlined all of those then I wouldn't hugely
> object to it, but I think it touches enough files that it's
> a separate thing from removing the #if guards that this
> patch does.)
The other option is just to replace QEMU_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT with
#define QEMU_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT G_GNUC_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT
and convert code to use G_GNUC_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT directly until we
can kill the QEMU specific define. There's no benefit to QEMU having
its own defines that duplicate stuff already covered by our min
required glib - G_GNUC_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT was added in 2.10 for
example.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-31 18:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-31 16:14 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Drop QEMU_GNUC_PREREQ() checks for gcc older than 4.1 Peter Maydell
2017-01-31 16:55 ` Daniel P. Berrange
2017-01-31 16:58 ` Peter Maydell
2017-01-31 23:27 ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-01-31 17:40 ` Markus Armbruster
2017-01-31 18:00 ` Peter Maydell
2017-01-31 18:11 ` Daniel P. Berrange [this message]
2017-01-31 18:32 ` Peter Maydell
2017-01-31 19:02 ` Markus Armbruster
2017-01-31 18:58 ` Markus Armbruster
2017-01-31 23:27 ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-02-01 6:49 ` Markus Armbruster
2017-02-02 1:09 ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-02-02 10:17 ` Markus Armbruster
2017-04-21 9:08 ` Peter Maydell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170131181124.GF20303@redhat.com \
--to=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=patches@linaro.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-trivial@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).