Re: [Qemu-devel] Win2k host problem with {get,free}{addr,name}info()

[Anthony Liguori]

On 09/21/2010 01:32 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Anthony Liguori<address@hidden>  wrote:
>    
> > On 09/20/2010 03:03 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> >      
> > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Blue Swirl<address@hidden>    wrote:
> > >
> > >        
> > > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Anthony Liguori<address@hidden>
> > > >   wrote:
> > > >
> > > >          
> > > > > On 09/19/2010 11:16 AM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >            
> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Anthony Liguori<address@hidden>
> > > > > >   wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >              
> > > > > > > On 09/15/2010 02:11 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >                
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I tried to test QEMU on Win2k, but there are run time errors because
> > > > > > > > of missing {get,free}{addr,name}info() functions. After adding dummy
> > > > > > > > defines in place, there are no more errors.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I found a similar case, where a compatibility patch was proposed:
> > > > > > > > http://trac.filezilla-project.org/ticket/1532
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The patch is a bit heavy, consisting of run time detection of Win2k
> > > > > > > > and full replacements for the functions. Are there any alternative
> > > > > > > > solutions? I'm by no means a Windows expert.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >                  
> > > > > > > Win2k is EOL so I don't think it's useful for us to support it as a
> > > > > > > host.
> > > > > > >   So any type of patch is just going to add additional complexity for
> > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > little real gain.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >                
> > > > > > I made a compatibility patch based on the FileZilla patch. The impact
> > > > > > is very low, outside of the new files added, only Makefiles are
> > > > > > changed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >              
> > > > > Does gnulib have a similar replacement function?
> > > > >
> > > > >            
> > > > Very similar, in fact that must be the source.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >          
> > > > > The nice thing about gnulib is that in the long term, we could
> > > > > potentially
> > > > > use gnulib for compatibility and make sure to get updated code.
> > > > >
> > > > >            
> > > > One problem is that the current versions use GPLv3.
> > > >
> > > >          
> > > Sorry, I made too hasty conclusions based on a few files.
> > > getaddrinfo.c and inet_ntop.c are both GPLv2+.
> > >
> > >        
> > Perfect, that works out very well then.
> >      
> Sort of, gnulib needs some configuration before use. I made some hacks
> to avoid that and also suppressed warnings by overriding QEMU_CFLAGS,
> but it's getting ugly.
>
> Actually, there's no 'configure' in gnulib HEAD even though
> docs/INSTALL mentions that. Strange.
>
> Is it possible to apply local patches to a submodule tree?
>    

You mean in git?  If you fork the submodule, you can carry patches and 
then merge back with the original tree.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori