From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Subject: Empty struct in public headers Was: Re: [PATCH for Xen
 4.5] xen/arm: Add support for GICv3 for domU
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:49:57 +0000
Message-ID: <546B6AA5.1050409@linaro.org>
References: <1414695092-20761-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>	<54535E240200007800043DAC@mail.emea.novell.com>	<546B5F15.5060702@linaro.org>	<21611.24907.144396.509457@mariner.uk.xensource.com>	<546B650D.8040304@linaro.org>
	<21611.26449.963393.613516@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <julien.grall@linaro.org>) id 1Xql2X-0003mh-GI
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:50:01 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id n3so2299968wiv.11
	for <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>;
	Tue, 18 Nov 2014 07:49:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <21611.26449.963393.613516@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, ian.campbell@citrix.com, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, tim@xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

(Rename the mail and strip the cc list)

On 11/18/2014 03:35 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Julien Grall writes ("Re: [PATCH for Xen 4.5] xen/arm: Add support for GICv3 for domU"):
>> On 11/18/2014 03:10 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> Empty structs are a gcc extension (`(gcc-4.4) Empty Structures').  I
>>> would be very surprised if clang didn't support them too.
>>
>> AFAIK, clang doesn't complain about empty structures.
> 
> Right.
> 
>>> AIUI our policy, gcc extensions are fine except in the Xen public
>>> headers.
>>
>> We have at least 2 "empty" structure on the ARM public header.
> 
> That ought to be fixed, in case anyone ever wants to build ARM guests
> with Norcroft C or something.
> 
> Does the size of these structs matter ?

The 2 structures are arch_vcpu_info and arch_shared_info.

They are used only at the end of the structure vcpu_info (resp.
shared_info). So I guess we could fix it?

>> Would something like below be better?
>>
>> struct
>> {
>>   int dummy:1
>> };
> 
> I don't see why you wouldn't just do
>    struct blah { char dummy; };
> or even int dummy;

It was to avoid using more bit than necessary. I will use your solution.

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall