qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Drop QEMU_GNUC_PREREQ() checks for gcc older th


From: Markus Armbruster
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Drop QEMU_GNUC_PREREQ() checks for gcc older than 4.1
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 20:02:19 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux)

Peter Maydell <address@hidden> writes:

> On 31 January 2017 at 18:11, Daniel P. Berrange <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 06:00:13PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> We have attributes which we wrap in QEMU_ macros already
>>> even though they always expand to the same thing:
>>> QEMU_NORETURN and QEMU_ALIGNED. I'm happy to leave these
>>> to follow that pattern. (If you wanted to send a patch
>>> series that uninlined all of those then I wouldn't hugely
>>> object to it, but I think it touches enough files that it's
>>> a separate thing from removing the #if guards that this
>>> patch does.)
>>
>> The other option is just to replace QEMU_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT with
>>
>>   #define QEMU_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT  G_GNUC_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT
>>
>> and convert code to use G_GNUC_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT directly until we
>> can kill the QEMU specific define. There's no benefit to QEMU having
>> its own defines that duplicate stuff already covered by our min
>> required glib - G_GNUC_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT was added in 2.10 for
>> example.
>
> I wouldn't object to that either, but again it ought to be
> a different patch or patch series to this one...

I wouldn't exactly object, just say that to me, wrapping an attribute in
a GLib-provided macro even though we're not aware of a compiler that
profits from it feels a bit like "look ma, I've read all of the GLib
manual!"



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]