From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:43443) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QwZm0-0007CN-Tx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 09:15:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QwZlz-0004P5-Jl for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 09:15:08 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:2961) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QwZlz-0004ON-6K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 09:15:07 -0400 Message-ID: <4E564AD6.7040307@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:15:02 +0300 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4E48BF2F.7080901@web.de> <4E501243.2090806@mail.berlios.de> <4E54C045.9020007@web.de> <4E562C38.3010908@web.de> <4E564254.2080204@web.de> <4E5647F0.1080806@redhat.com> <4E564909.6010105@us.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <4E564909.6010105@us.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL] slirp: Fix issues with -mms-bitfields List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Blue Swirl , TeLeMan , Jan Kiszka , qemu-devel On 08/25/2011 04:07 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 08/25/2011 08:02 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> On 08/25/2011 03:38 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> >> >>> >> What a mess. Do we really have to go through all 257 packed data >>> structs >>> >> in QEMU and add these MS compat bits to all potentially affected >>> ones? >>> > I prefer to detect -mms-bitfields and remove it in configure. >> >> Can use -mno-ms-bitfields later to override it. > > No, we can't do that. > > The reason glib uses -mms-bitfields is that you need to use it in > order to call Windows APIs which is does. We will eventually need to > do it anyway. I meant, just for our own objects. As long as there are no glib APIs which use bitfields, it should work. However, I don't like it either, and prefer the __attribute__(((((((gcc_fields)))))) as well. -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain.