From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43112) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aYhqp-00055f-UJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 17:24:08 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aYhqo-0007Yn-PE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 17:24:07 -0500 Received: from mail-vk0-x229.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400c:c05::229]:34364) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aYhqo-0007YS-JF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 17:24:06 -0500 Received: by mail-vk0-x229.google.com with SMTP id e185so31170868vkb.1 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:24:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56CDFD42.6050906@redhat.com> References: <1456237112-32662-1-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> <1456237112-32662-2-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> <56CDFD42.6050906@redhat.com> From: Peter Maydell Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:23:45 +0000 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/4] slirp/slirp.h: Remove now-empty #ifdefs List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth Cc: QEMU Developers , Patch Tracking On 24 February 2016 at 18:58, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 23.02.2016 15:18, Peter Maydell wrote: >> After automatic cleanup to remove unnecessary #includes of headers that >> osdep.h provides, slirp.h has a few now unnecessary #ifdef/#endif pairs; >> remove them. >> >> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell >> --- >> slirp/slirp.h | 24 ------------------------ >> 1 file changed, 24 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/slirp/slirp.h b/slirp/slirp.h >> index 07c13b4..7cfcf63 100644 >> --- a/slirp/slirp.h >> +++ b/slirp/slirp.h > ... >> @@ -98,12 +80,6 @@ void free(void *ptr); >> #include >> #endif >> >> -#ifdef __STDC__ >> -#else >> -#include >> -#endif > > That else branch isn't really empty ... OTOH, QEMU likely does not > compile with a non-STDC-compliant compiler anyway, so I assume this is ok. Indeed. > Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth Thanks. -- PMM