From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:45188) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rmle6-0003ZG-Sb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:26:43 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rmle5-0001UP-Lk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:26:42 -0500 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:48696 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rmle5-0001UD-BR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:26:41 -0500 Message-ID: <4F141710.7050009@suse.de> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:24:48 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1326674823-13069-1-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de> <1326674823-13069-6-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de> <4F14145C.90604@suse.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 05/14] target-mips: Move definition of uint_fast{8, 16}_t to osdep.h List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Anthony Liguori , Jan Kiszka , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Blue Swirl , Stefan Weil , =?UTF-8?B?QXVyw6lsaWVuIEphcm5v?= Am 16.01.2012 13:21, schrieb Peter Maydell: > On 16 January 2012 12:13, Andreas F=C3=A4rber wrote: >> Am 16.01.2012 12:38, schrieb Peter Maydell: >>> On 16 January 2012 00:46, Andreas F=C3=A4rber wrot= e: >>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_SOLARIS) && CONFIG_SOLARIS_VERSION < 10 >>>> +/* uint_fast8_t and uint_fast16_t not in */ >>>> +typedef unsigned char uint_fast8_t; >>>> +typedef unsigned int uint_fast16_t; >>>> +#endif >>> >>> If you make the comment say >>> /* uint_fast*_t and int_fast*_t not in */ >>> >>> then it won't become out of date when your later patches add >>> the other types to this section. >> >> I have no clue if that is the case, I just moved it and fixed the >> comment style. But sure, I can change the comment itself as well. >=20 > Well, your later patches add more typedefs here, right? So we need > to know: either old Solaris doesn't have any of these types and we > must typedef them all (and the comment should match that), or it > is only missing the two currently noted here, in which case we don't > need to and should not add further typedefs. What we don't want is > to have a comment and code which disagree... I'm hoping Ben can clarify. Fabrice attributed the Solaris/sparc support to him. /-F --=20 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=C3=BCrnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=C3=B6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=C3=BC= rnberg