qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v2 12/13] compiler: remove GNUC check


From: Peter Maydell
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/13] compiler: remove GNUC check
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 12:10:02 +0000

On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 at 11:30, <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
>
> QEMU requires Clang or GCC, that define and support __GNUC__ extensions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
> ---
>  include/qemu/compiler.h | 8 +-------
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/qemu/compiler.h b/include/qemu/compiler.h
> index 108bfdb391..f492baf341 100644
> --- a/include/qemu/compiler.h
> +++ b/include/qemu/compiler.h
> @@ -55,14 +55,10 @@
>      (offsetof(container, field) + sizeof_field(container, field))
>
>  /* Convert from a base type to a parent type, with compile time checking.  */
> -#ifdef __GNUC__
>  #define DO_UPCAST(type, field, dev) ( __extension__ ( { \
>      char __attribute__((unused)) offset_must_be_zero[ \
>          -offsetof(type, field)]; \
>      container_of(dev, type, field);}))
> -#else
> -#define DO_UPCAST(type, field, dev) container_of(dev, type, field)
> -#endif

This bit looks good.

>  #define typeof_field(type, field) typeof(((type *)0)->field)
>  #define type_check(t1,t2) ((t1*)0 - (t2*)0)
> @@ -93,7 +89,7 @@
>  #if defined(__clang__)
>    /* clang doesn't support gnu_printf, so use printf. */
>  # define GCC_FMT_ATTR(n, m) __attribute__((format(printf, n, m)))
> -#elif defined(__GNUC__)
> +#else
>     /* Use gnu_printf (qemu uses standard format strings). */
>  # define GCC_FMT_ATTR(n, m) __attribute__((format(gnu_printf, n, m)))
>  # if defined(_WIN32)
> @@ -101,8 +97,6 @@
>      * even when MinGW or GLib include files use __printf__. */
>  #  define __printf__ __gnu_printf__
>  # endif
> -#else
> -#define GCC_FMT_ATTR(n, m)
>  #endif

Didn't you already change the GCC_FMT_ATTR stuff in a previous
patch in the series? If so this part should just be squashed
into that one.

thanks
-- PMM



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]