From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IzgE2-0004kB-E5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:26:46 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IzgDz-0004dp-LW
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:26:45 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzgDz-0004dP-Ay
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:26:43 -0500
Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>) id 1IzgDy-0002CZ-QG
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:26:43 -0500
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 22:26:17 +0000 (GMT)
From: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: gcc
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712042216220.27959@racer.site>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712042224240.27959@racer.site>
References: <200712032020.29182.rickv@hobi.com>
	<87zlwqw3bu.fsf@brigitte.dna.fi>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0712042216220.27959@racer.site>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Antti P Miettinen <ananaza@iki.fi>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Hi,

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Antti P Miettinen wrote:
> 
> > Rick Vernam <rickv@hobi.com> writes:
> > > any comments on the current status of moving beyond dependency on 
> > > GCC 3.3.6?
> > 
> > Sorry for a vague ignorant question, but would the gcc-4 issues be 
> > affected in any way if the ops were inside a big function (use labels 
> > to find them) vs the current use of separate functions?
> 
> It might be a bit outdated, but the basic ideas still hold valid in 
> http://libvncserver.sourceforge.net/qemu/qemu-porting.html.
> 
> So no, you cannot have the ops inside a big function.

I realise that I was not quite clear enough... gcc4 has this annoying 
behaviour that it occasionally puts in return statements in the middle of 
the function.  There seems to be no option to prevent that.  And this 
behaviour is not helped by having one function rather than many.

Hth,
Dscho