[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4
From: |
Johannes Schindelin |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4 |
Date: |
Mon, 23 Oct 2006 03:45:15 +0200 (CEST) |
Hi Rob,
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006, Rob Landley wrote:
> Basically, gcc changed in a way that broke qemu.
Yes, they did. But even if I understand your frustration (which I share),
I also understand the gcc people. After all, using gcc to create the
blocks for dynamic translation is a _hack_. The result of a compiler run,
though, should work and run -- as fast as possible. So basically, the gcc
people want to achieve a different goal from what we misuse their program
for.
> I was pondered trying to get tcc to build qemu,
(since tcc only supports x86 targets, this is not really a solution.)
> and even made a mercurial copy [...] But Fabrice showed back up on
> tuesday and checked in a patch, and now I've got a fork that's out of
> sync with mainline.
I do not really know Mercurial, but it should make it really easy to merge
two branches (as far as I have been told).
Ciao,
Dscho
- Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4, (continued)
- Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4, Rob Landley, 2006/10/29
- Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4, Paul Brook, 2006/10/30
- Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4, Rob Landley, 2006/10/30
- Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4, Paul Brook, 2006/10/30
- Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4, Stephen Torri, 2006/10/30
- Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4, Paul Brook, 2006/10/30
Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4, Rob Landley, 2006/10/22