From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:48078) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RmlYh-0001I0-9i for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:21:08 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RmlYd-0000gQ-7v for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:21:07 -0500 Received: from mail-qw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.216.45]:58121) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RmlYd-0000gD-5P for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:21:03 -0500 Received: by qabg40 with SMTP id g40so224607qab.4 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 04:21:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4F14145C.90604@suse.de> References: <1326674823-13069-1-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de> <1326674823-13069-6-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de> <4F14145C.90604@suse.de> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:21:02 +0000 Message-ID: From: Peter Maydell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 05/14] target-mips: Move definition of uint_fast{8, 16}_t to osdep.h List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_F=C3=A4rber?= Cc: Anthony Liguori , Jan Kiszka , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Blue Swirl , Stefan Weil , =?UTF-8?Q?Aur=C3=A9lien_Jarno?= On 16 January 2012 12:13, Andreas F=C3=A4rber wrote: > Am 16.01.2012 12:38, schrieb Peter Maydell: >> On 16 January 2012 00:46, Andreas F=C3=A4rber wrote: >>> +#if defined(CONFIG_SOLARIS) && CONFIG_SOLARIS_VERSION < 10 >>> +/* uint_fast8_t and uint_fast16_t not in */ >>> +typedef unsigned char =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 uint_fast8_t; >>> +typedef unsigned int =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0uint_fas= t16_t; >>> +#endif >> >> If you make the comment say >> /* uint_fast*_t and int_fast*_t not in */ >> >> then it won't become out of date when your later patches add >> the other types to this section. > > I have no clue if that is the case, I just moved it and fixed the > comment style. But sure, I can change the comment itself as well. Well, your later patches add more typedefs here, right? So we need to know: either old Solaris doesn't have any of these types and we must typedef them all (and the comment should match that), or it is only missing the two currently noted here, in which case we don't need to and should not add further typedefs. What we don't want is to have a comment and code which disagree... -- PMM