From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39310) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aZGjy-000764-9Z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 06:39:23 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aZGjx-0001Lu-8o for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 06:39:22 -0500 Received: from mail-vk0-x229.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400c:c05::229]:35236) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aZGjx-0001Lq-4X for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 06:39:21 -0500 Received: by mail-vk0-x229.google.com with SMTP id e6so74533611vkh.2 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 03:39:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56CFE621.8040102@weilnetz.de> References: <1456420321-20924-1-git-send-email-mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160225212725.29588.10089@loki> <56CFE621.8040102@weilnetz.de> From: Peter Maydell Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:39:01 +0000 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/9] qemu-ga patch queue for 2.6 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Weil Cc: Michael Roth , QEMU Developers On 26 February 2016 at 05:44, Stefan Weil wrote: > Am 25.02.2016 um 22:27 schrieb Michael Roth: >> Quoting Peter Maydell (2016-02-25 12:18:17) > [...] >>> I'm open to the idea of dropping old-mingw from the build rotation >>> if it looks like it really is just totally hopeless, since I have >>> a newer setup for it now. >> >> I wouldn't want to speak for dropping old mingw checks in general (cc'ing >> Stefan), but for qemu-ga I think it makes sense. VSS/fsfreeze also >> relies on mingw-w64 so it's really the only build system I use for >> testing functionality. > > I cannot remember the last time when I used MinGW and don't think > that it would produce a working program (wasn't there missing support > for thread local storage?). Current Linux distributions include > support for mingw-w64 cross compilations, but not for MinGW. > And finally MinGW only supports 32 bit Windows which looses > importance nowadays. > > Therefore dropping MinGW support and only supporting mingw-w64 would > be fine for me. OK, I have dropped my ancient mingw w32 setup from the compile testing list, so this pull req is ok to apply as-is. (This will also mean we no longer get annoying "failed to build" issues for other gcc-4.2-isms like duplicate typedefs, missing U or ULL suffixes, etc. Which is good I guess :-)) thanks -- PMM