On 7 January 2015 at 18:02, Stefan Weil wrote:
> Hello,
>
> this patch which is part of QEMU for more than a year now needs to be fixed
> for builds on Mac OS X:
> I just saw that the Mac's native linker ld does not support --verbose, but
> shows a warning.
Cosmetically ugly, but not a show stop
On 01/07/2015 10:02 AM, Stefan Weil wrote:
> Would it be sufficient to redirect that warning to /dev/null (as it was done
> in
> the previous code)?
Probably.
r~
Hello,
this patch which is part of QEMU for more than a year now needs to be
fixed for builds on Mac OS X:
I just saw that the Mac's native linker ld does not support --verbose,
but shows a warning.
Would it be sufficient to redirect that warning to /dev/null (as it was
done in the previous
Applied. Thanks.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Ping 2.
On 07/02/2013 08:12 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Ping.
>
> On 06/21/2013 07:10 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> For bsd-user and linux-user emulation modes QEMU needs to be linked at an
>> alternate .text segment address, so that it's out of the way of the guest
>> executable. Instead o
Ping.
On 06/21/2013 07:10 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> For bsd-user and linux-user emulation modes QEMU needs to be linked at an
> alternate .text segment address, so that it's out of the way of the guest
> executable. Instead of including modified linker scripts for each arch,
> just set the a
On 21 June 2013 22:10, Richard Henderson wrote:
> For bsd-user and linux-user emulation modes QEMU needs to be linked at an
> alternate .text segment address, so that it's out of the way of the guest
> executable. Instead of including modified linker scripts for each arch,
> just set the address
On 23 June 2013 19:20, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 06/22/2013 03:58 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> Should we really be putting this in LDFLAGS? That seems
>> likely to end up getting accidentally applied in places
>> where we don't want it (helper binaries, etc). It seems
>> like it would be more r
On 06/22/2013 03:58 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 22 June 2013 03:10, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> + ldflags="$ldflags $textseg_ldflags"
>> fi
>>
>> echo "LDFLAGS+=$ldflags" >> $config_target_mak
>
> Should we really be putting this in LDFLAGS? That seems
> likely to end up getting accidentally
On 22 June 2013 03:10, Richard Henderson wrote:
> + ldflags="$ldflags $textseg_ldflags"
> fi
>
> echo "LDFLAGS+=$ldflags" >> $config_target_mak
Should we really be putting this in LDFLAGS? That seems
likely to end up getting accidentally applied in places
where we don't want it (helper binarie
10 matches
Mail list logo
