On 08/10/2018 02:13 AM, Alex Bennée wrote: >> + for (intptr_t reg_off = find_next_active(vg, 0, reg_max, esz); > > Hmm this blew up CI complaining about c99-isms, but QEMU is supposed to > be c99 compliant. > > https://travis-ci.org/stsquad/qemu/builds/414248994
Bah. That's what I get for doing two things at once on different projects with different standards. On the other hand, would anyone seriously object to me adding -std=gnu99 to the compile flags? C99's 20th birthday is coming up next year... r~
