From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43296) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ViVla-00009d-Sc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:50:00 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ViVlS-0003a8-M4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:49:54 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:7197) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ViVlS-0003a4-DJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:49:46 -0500 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAIKni4C025907 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:49:45 -0500 Message-ID: <528A7D64.4020908@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 06:49:40 +1000 From: Richard Henderson MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Qemu-devel] [for-1.7] hw/i386/acpi-build.c vs glib-2.12 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: qemu-devel hw/i386/acpi-build.c:294:5: error: implicit declaration of function =91g_string_vprintf=92 [-Werror=3Dimplicit-function-declaration] g_string_vprintf(s, format, args); Introduced in 2.14. hw/i386/acpi-build.c:427:5: error: implicit declaration of function =91g_array_get_element_size=92 [-Werror=3Dimplicit-function-declaration] return table->len * g_array_get_element_size(table); Introduced in 2.22. Our (self-)documented minimums are if test "$mingw32" =3D yes; then # g_poll is required in order to integrate with the glib main loop. glib_req_ver=3D2.20 else glib_req_ver=3D2.12 fi Within unix variants at least, vs(n)printf is likely to be much more port= able than the glib function. I suspect MinGW has it as well, though I've not = checked. As for g_array_get_element_size, aren't all of your tables element size 1= ? That's all I can see from acpi_build_tables_init, though I admit to not d= igging deeper. r~