Am 12.07.2012 22:28, schrieb Blue Swirl: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Am 08.07.2012 14:09, schrieb Andreas Schwab: >>> blauwir...@gmail.com writes: >>> >>>> + pstrcpy(bs->backing_format, sizeof(bs->backing_format), >>>> + backing_fmt ? backing_file : ""); >>> >>> s/backing_file/backing_fmt/ >> >> Which is why such changes are probably a bad idea. Even more so if they >> aren't scripted. > > Maybe your patches are perfect from day one, but all patches can be > buggy. Review should catch some of the bugs, others may be found > later. It's not possible to script this because expr1 may have side > effects.
No, my patches aren't perfect, each patch is a risk. So all I'm saying is that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. >> Does this patch improve anything? Last time I checked, qemu only >> compiled on gcc anyway. > > It improves C99 compliance. GCC extensions should not be used unless > absolutely required. In the future, it should be possible to compile > QEMU with any C compiler, AREG0 patches remove the biggest obstacle. If this is our goal and we're really close, it might be worth these changes. Are you working towards getting a specific compiler to build qemu? Can we get a buildbot for this compiler once it works for the first time? Because otherwise I'm pretty sure that it will break frequently. Kevin
