From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44421) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Spbok-0006dk-1T for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 05:05:46 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Spboe-0005K4-56 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 05:05:41 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:16646) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Spbod-0005Jx-S9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 05:05:36 -0400 Message-ID: <4FFFE4D5.2090101@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:05:25 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5b88891d9683e0289cd8e24a999ac9d1fdb3fdb3.1341748181.git.blauwirbel@gmail.com> <4FFD7790.20201@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/5] Avoid GCC extension ?: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Blue Swirl Cc: blueswirl@gmail.com, Andreas Schwab , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Am 12.07.2012 22:28, schrieb Blue Swirl: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> Am 08.07.2012 14:09, schrieb Andreas Schwab: >>> blauwirbel@gmail.com writes: >>> >>>> + pstrcpy(bs->backing_format, sizeof(bs->backing_format), >>>> + backing_fmt ? backing_file : ""); >>> >>> s/backing_file/backing_fmt/ >> >> Which is why such changes are probably a bad idea. Even more so if they >> aren't scripted. > > Maybe your patches are perfect from day one, but all patches can be > buggy. Review should catch some of the bugs, others may be found > later. It's not possible to script this because expr1 may have side > effects. No, my patches aren't perfect, each patch is a risk. So all I'm saying is that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. >> Does this patch improve anything? Last time I checked, qemu only >> compiled on gcc anyway. > > It improves C99 compliance. GCC extensions should not be used unless > absolutely required. In the future, it should be possible to compile > QEMU with any C compiler, AREG0 patches remove the biggest obstacle. If this is our goal and we're really close, it might be worth these changes. Are you working towards getting a specific compiler to build qemu? Can we get a buildbot for this compiler once it works for the first time? Because otherwise I'm pretty sure that it will break frequently. Kevin