From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=42847 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OvxbZ-0001yc-8X
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:25:22 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1OvxbT-0004iA-UE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:25:16 -0400
Received: from mail-pz0-f45.google.com ([209.85.210.45]:51541)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1OvxbT-0004hu-P4
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:25:11 -0400
Received: by pzk12 with SMTP id 12so175640pzk.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:25:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4C911D8F.1060406@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 14:25:03 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Win2k host problem with {get,free}{addr,name}info()
References: <AANLkTi=2PE_cV1c=7xoUu95oYVuqTUCehxi2s0huivVU@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=2PE_cV1c=7xoUu95oYVuqTUCehxi2s0huivVU@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
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: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Cc: qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 09/15/2010 02:11 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tried to test QEMU on Win2k, but there are run time errors because
> of missing {get,free}{addr,name}info() functions. After adding dummy
> defines in place, there are no more errors.
>
> I found a similar case, where a compatibility patch was proposed:
> http://trac.filezilla-project.org/ticket/1532
>
> The patch is a bit heavy, consisting of run time detection of Win2k
> and full replacements for the functions. Are there any alternative
> solutions? I'm by no means a Windows expert.
>    

Win2k is EOL so I don't think it's useful for us to support it as a 
host.  So any type of patch is just going to add additional complexity 
for very little real gain.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori