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". > 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. 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. thanks -- PMM
