Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC, PATCH] Add -Wstrict-prototypes, maybe later -Wmissing-prototypes

[Laurent Vivier <Laurent.Vivier@bull.net>]

Le lundi 11 août 2008 à 20:57 -0500, Anthony Liguori a écrit :
> Laurent Vivier wrote:
> > Le lundi 11 août 2008 à 14:22 -0500, Anthony Liguori a écrit :
> >   
> >
> > but using "void (*handler)(int argc, char** argv)" avoids the switch:
> >
> > switch(nb_args) {
> >     case 0:
> >         cmd->handler();
> >         break;
> >     case 1:
> >         cmd->handler(args[0]);
> >         break;
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > becomes
> >
> > cmd->handler(nb_args, args);
> >   
> 
> And then every monitor command changes from:
> 
> void do_eject(int force, char *device)
> {
>      ...
> }
> 
> to:
> 
> void do_eject(int argc, char **argv)
> {
>    char *device;
>    int force = 0;
> 
>    if (argc == 2) {
>      if (strcmp(argv[0], "-f") == 0) {
>          force = 1;
>          device = argv[1];
>      } else {
>          term_printf("bad option %s\n", argv[0]);
>          return;
>      }
>   } else if (argc == 1) {
>       device = argv[0];
>   } else {
>       term_printf("bad number of options\n");
>       return;
>   }
> 
>   ...
> }

Yes

> Consider multiplying that by all of the possible monitor commands, and 
> it's totally not worth it.

it's cleaner and more flexible...
and from an artistic point of view, it's beautiful ;-)

Laurent
-- 
----------------- Laurent.Vivier@bull.net  ------------------
  "La perfection est atteinte non quand il ne reste rien à
ajouter mais quand il ne reste rien à enlever." Saint Exupéry