From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=52600 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OUM5K-0001mT-Jg
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2010 11:53:55 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>) id 1OUM5J-0004Va-5P
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2010 11:53:54 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:61625)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>) id 1OUM5I-0004VP-TU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2010 11:53:53 -0400
Message-ID: <4C2CBA0B.6030804@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 17:53:47 +0200
From: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] win32: Add missing function setenv
References: <1277981269-751-1-git-send-email-weil@mail.berlios.de>
	<4C2C8110.2090200@redhat.com> <4C2C968B.40007@mail.berlios.de>
	<4C2C96FF.8050000@redhat.com> <4C2CB980.9000909@mail.berlios.de>
In-Reply-To: <4C2CB980.9000909@mail.berlios.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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.nongnu.org/archive/html/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: Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de>
Cc: QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 07/01/10 17:51, Stefan Weil wrote:
> Am 01.07.2010 15:24, schrieb Jes Sorensen:
>> On 07/01/10 15:22, Stefan Weil wrote:
>>> It won't fail for two reasons:
>>>
>>> * It is not redefined (at least for linux systems) because I used the
>>> POSIX declaration.
>>
>> This still fails with strict compiler flags.
>>
>>> * It is compiled only for _WIN32 (see line 95).
>>
>> True, but we need to move stuff out of osdep.h and into the other files
>> as much as possible, so it is still preferred that you move it.
> 
> That's a valid argument. As there is more stuff to move out of osdep.h,
> I suggest doing that in a second step. Now, it is most important to get
> Windows builds working again (they fail currently with a linker error).

Rather than add it to remove it in the next patch, please update your
patch and repost it. That causes less noise and will get win32 building
again just as fast.

Cheers,
Jes