On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 15:09, Thomas Huth wrote:
>
> On 10/07/2020 15.25, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > If we're going to mandate "at least gcc 4.6 or clang", perhaps
> > we should have a sanity check for it
> It's already there. Look for:
>
> "You need at least GCC v4.8 or Clang v3.4 (or XCode Clang
On 10/07/2020 15.25, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 05:56, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>
>> GCC supports "#pragma GCC diagnostic" since version 4.6, and
>> Clang seems to support it, too, since its early versions 3.x.
>> That means that our minimum required compiler versions all support
>>
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 05:56, Thomas Huth wrote:
>
> GCC supports "#pragma GCC diagnostic" since version 4.6, and
> Clang seems to support it, too, since its early versions 3.x.
> That means that our minimum required compiler versions all support
> this pragma already and we can remove the test fr
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 06:55:15AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> GCC supports "#pragma GCC diagnostic" since version 4.6, and
> Clang seems to support it, too, since its early versions 3.x.
> That means that our minimum required compiler versions all support
> this pragma already and we can remove th
GCC supports "#pragma GCC diagnostic" since version 4.6, and
Clang seems to support it, too, since its early versions 3.x.
That means that our minimum required compiler versions all support
this pragma already and we can remove the test from configure and
all the related #ifdefs in the code.
Revie
