From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Kjbiu-0003lx-Qs
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:28:45 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Kjbis-0003kb-TQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:28:44 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37524 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Kjbis-0003kW-Oh
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:28:42 -0400
Received: from yw-out-1718.google.com ([74.125.46.156]:58803)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Kjbis-000774-Tl
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:28:43 -0400
Received: by yw-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 6so221767ywa.82
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 08:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <48DE50EC.4090003@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 10:27:40 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] preprocessor issue in
	qemu/patch-block-raw-posix.c
References: <20080921204025.GA81055@saturn.kn-bremen.de>
	<200809242210.m8OMAcSZ021572@saturn.kn-bremen.de>
	<20080925201703.GA12142@saturn.kn-bremen.de>
	<48DBF71E.1000405@codemonkey.ws>
	<20080926212925.GA10666@saturn.kn-bremen.de>
In-Reply-To: <20080926212925.GA10666@saturn.kn-bremen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org

Juergen Lock wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 03:39:58PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>   
>> Juergen Lock wrote:
>>     
>>> I forgot to note that this also needed the following patch:
>>>   
>>>       
>> Why?  This #ifdef is working around a very specific bug.
>>
>>     
> Well, looks like the preprocessor tries to parse the entire expression
> including the undefined `!__GLIBC_PREREQ(2, 4)' before evaluating it:
>
> block-raw-posix.c:548:69: missing binary operator before token "("
>
> so I just put it on an extra line.
>   

It's fixed in SVN now.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori