From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=41548 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PwbcT-0007zM-7Q
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 09:41:10 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1PwbcS-00080H-3z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 09:41:09 -0500
Received: from mail-iy0-f173.google.com ([209.85.210.173]:58066)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1PwbcS-000806-0p
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 09:41:08 -0500
Received: by iym7 with SMTP id 7so4808257iym.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 06:41:07 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D74EE81.60806@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 08:41:05 -0600
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 11/22] qapi: add signal support to core QMP
	server
References: <1299460984-15849-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>	<1299460984-15849-12-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>	<AANLkTineRkveL6SztbCnXL3izEMZmhwebeoA8yXJKap_@mail.gmail.com>	<4D74E364.6010301@codemonkey.ws>
	<AANLkTi=8vGVW-jkf-LkJqLOW6O1MVwRbW32vKubXbLiK@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=8vGVW-jkf-LkJqLOW6O1MVwRbW32vKubXbLiK@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
Cc: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Adam Litke <aglitke@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On 03/07/2011 08:36 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>
>> Technically void (*)() is an obsolete type in standard C.
>>
>> I can switch to void (*)(void) but it requires casting and requires a
>> typeof() :-/
>>      
> You're right, void (*)(void) is the proper form for a general function
> pointer.  I think doing this in a portable way is worthwhile.
>    

Yeah, using a function pointer is definitely better than using a void 
*.  We'll just have to live with the use of typeof() though which 
fortunately is supported in some form by basically every compiler out there.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Stefan
>
>