On 26/11/2015 13:19, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 26 November 2015 at 12:15, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: >>> I don't see much point in documenting what we rely on >>> if we can't rely on it and need to stop relying on it. >> >> "Can't" and "need" are too strong. The kernel can, and I fail to see >> what makes us so special that we absolutely cannot. > > The kernel has the luxury of being able to say "we only compile > with gcc".
Actually no, there are people interested in compiling it with clang (mostly because of GPL FUD and LLVM koolaid, but that's secondary in this context). >> For what it's worth, I'm sick and tired of patches "fixing" signed >> shifts, and the unnecessary risk that comes with them. > > Me too. Great, that's a start. And I'm totally not sarcastic about this. Paolo > I just want us to fix this by getting the compiler authors > to document that we can rely on this stuff, not just by silencing > warnings in QEMU's makefiles.
