"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 06:09:52PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20/01/2017 17:57, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 08:42:41AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>> >>
>> >>> There are theoretical co
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 06:09:52PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 20/01/2017 17:57, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 08:42:41AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> >>
> >>> There are theoretical concerns that some compilers might not tri
On 20/01/2017 17:57, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 08:42:41AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>>
>>> There are theoretical concerns that some compilers might not trigger
>>> build failures on attempts to define an array of size -1 and make it
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 08:42:41AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>
> > There are theoretical concerns that some compilers might not trigger
> > build failures on attempts to define an array of size -1 and make it a
> > variable sized array instead. Let rewrite usi
* Eric Blake (ebl...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On 01/20/2017 03:41 AM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>
> >> -#define QEMU_BUILD_BUG_ON(x) \
> >> -typedef char glue(qemu_build_bug_on__, __LINE__)[(x) ? -1 : 1] \
> >> -__attribute__((unused))
> >> +#define QEMU_BUILD_BUG_ON_STRUCT(x) \
> >> +
On 01/20/2017 03:41 AM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>> -#define QEMU_BUILD_BUG_ON(x) \
>> -typedef char glue(qemu_build_bug_on__, __LINE__)[(x) ? -1 : 1] \
>> -__attribute__((unused))
>> +#define QEMU_BUILD_BUG_ON_STRUCT(x) \
>> +struct { \
>> +int qemu_build_bug_on : (x)
* Michael S. Tsirkin (m...@redhat.com) wrote:
> There are theoretical concerns that some compilers might not trigger
> build failures on attempts to define an array of size -1 and make it a
> variable sized array instead. Let rewrite using a struct with a negative
> bit field size instead as there
Eric Blake writes:
> On 01/19/2017 03:07 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> There are theoretical concerns that some compilers might not trigger
>> build failures on attempts to define an array of size -1 and make it a
>> variable sized array instead.
>
> Rather, the concern is that if someone chan
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> There are theoretical concerns that some compilers might not trigger
> build failures on attempts to define an array of size -1 and make it a
> variable sized array instead. Let rewrite using a struct with a negative
> bit field size instead as there are no dynamic
On 01/19/2017 03:07 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> There are theoretical concerns that some compilers might not trigger
> build failures on attempts to define an array of size -1 and make it a
> variable sized array instead.
Rather, the concern is that if someone changes code so that the 'x' of
Q
There are theoretical concerns that some compilers might not trigger
build failures on attempts to define an array of size -1 and make it a
variable sized array instead. Let rewrite using a struct with a negative
bit field size instead as there are no dynamic bit field sizes. This is
similar to wh
11 matches
Mail list logo
