From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:43838)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1S86nK-00085h-G7
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 05:16:46 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1S86nI-0007tP-Pi
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 05:16:26 -0400
Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:60688 helo=mx2.suse.de)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1S86nI-0007t8-JZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 05:16:24 -0400
Received: from relay1.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 212D58738D
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:16:23 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4F61B366.30708@suse.de>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:16:22 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= <afaerber@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20120315001604.8FAA94010F@buildbot.b1-systems.de>
	<4F613140.60603@suse.de> <20120315001154.GH2894@illuin>
	<0DE7FD9D-EDA2-4AD8-875A-0FA65798BCDE@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <0DE7FD9D-EDA2-4AD8-875A-0FA65798BCDE@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] buildbot failure in qemu on default_s390
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/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: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

Am 15.03.2012 09:32, schrieb Alexander Graf:
>=20
> On 15.03.2012, at 01:11, Michael Roth <mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote=
:
>=20
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 01:01:04AM +0100, Andreas F=C3=A4rber wrote:
>>> My GCC handles the following code fine:
>>>
>>> typedef struct CPULM32State CPULM32State;
>>>
>>> typedef struct CPULM32State {
>>>    // ...
>>> } CPULM32State;
>>>
>>> Solutions would be to
>>> a) drop the second typedef,
>>> b) use struct CPULM32State,
>>> c) move the function using it to after the second typedef.
>>
>> I vote for a)
>=20
> Same here.

Long fixed. :) Wait, you haven't actually been sleeping at night this
once? ;)

Andreas

--=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