From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53756)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <revol@free.fr>) id 1YaXrQ-0005rs-P2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 19:03:49 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <revol@free.fr>) id 1YaXrM-0007Ha-N1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 19:03:48 -0400
Received: from smtp5-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.5]:30705)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <revol@free.fr>) id 1YaXrM-0007H6-HL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 19:03:44 -0400
Message-ID: <5511ED48.7070107@free.fr>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 00:03:36 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?B?RnJhbsOnb2lzIFJldm9s?= <revol@free.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1427153788-2738-1-git-send-email-kallisti5@unixzen.com>
	<5511E4A7.4050407@suse.de>
	<CAMo8BfKYhRRthT7rgO3eBGZ7K4_QBoeFKM5-bGJL0v_0gFgtmg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMo8BfKYhRRthT7rgO3eBGZ7K4_QBoeFKM5-bGJL0v_0gFgtmg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Haiku: Platform build fixes
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: Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander von Gluck IV <kallisti5@unixzen.com>, =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= <afaerber@suse.de>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 24/03/2015 23:56, Max Filippov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 1:26 AM, Andreas F=C3=A4rber <afaerber@suse.de>=
 wrote:
>> Am 24.03.2015 um 00:36 schrieb Alexander von Gluck IV:
>>>
>>
>> Why convert from array to switch statement? It looks like a very
>> invasive change for no obvious reason.
>=20
> I'd be interested to know the reason too, but I'm OK with either way.

Maybe because negative array indices are usually a bad idea in C?
Are the host errno codes used there actually?

Fran=C3=A7ois.