Re: non-ANSI Unions

[PUCCETTI Armand <armand.puccetti@cea.fr>]

Sorry, it was an err in the tool. Such unions are now understood properly.

Anthony Liguori a écrit :
> PUCCETTI Armand wrote:
>> Many "unions' are present in the code, but are non-ANSI!
>
> Anonymous unions/structs are a rather common C extension.  They are 
> much preferred to using a named union for the syntactical convenience 
> of writing:
>
> page_info.list
>
> vs writing:
>
> page_info.u.list
>
> Also, this is not the only C extension that Xen utilizes.  If your 
> analysis tool doesn't support the various GCC extensions, then it's 
> not going to be much help.
>
> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori
>
>> For instance, I see:
>>
>> struct page_info
>> {
>>    /* Each frame can be threaded onto a doubly-linked list. */
>>    union {
>>        struct list_head list;
>>        /* Shadow uses this field as an up-pointer in lower-level 
>> shadows */
>>        paddr_t up;
>>    };
>>    /* Reference count and various PGC_xxx flags and fields. */
>>    u32 count_info;
>> ...}
>>
>> which should be written properly:
>>
>> struct page_info
>> {
>>    /* Each frame can be threaded onto a doubly-linked list. */
>>    union {
>>        struct list_head list;
>>        /* Shadow uses this field as an up-pointer in lower-level 
>> shadows */
>>        paddr_t up;
>>    } foo;
>>
>>    /* Reference count and various PGC_xxx flags and fields. */
>>    u32 count_info;
>> ...}
>>
>> Is there any good reason to do so? Is it possible to change that, to 
>> comply with the standard
>> (and therefore with analysis tools too) ?
>>
>> Armand
>
>