"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:
>>
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
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
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
* 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 :
* 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
"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
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo