Re: [PATCH] ui/kbd-state.h: Make the header C++ compatible

[Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>]

Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:

> On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 at 21:44, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> (+Paolo / Eric)
>>
>> On 29/1/26 21:31, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> >
>> > What are we trying to achieve here, and why does it benefit
>> > us as an upstream project ?
>> >
>> > cf previous email thread from 2024
>> > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/ZnqPpqfBxlk9tEdX@redhat.com/
>> > about "drip-feeding" of this kind of patch with no clear take
>> > on what the end state is or how much churn it's going to induce.
>>
>> I clearly know QEMU is not a C++ project. Now I don't see why we should
>> be reluctant to have headers being usable by a C++ compiler, as long as
>> it doesn't make our project worst to maintain.
>
> Every bit of code that is written by some downstream in C++ is
> some thing that will essentially then never be upstreamed without
> a big rewrite. So making it easier for downstreams to use C++
> reduces our chances of seeing them contribute what they do back to us.
>
> It's also extra work for us (for instance in this thread you
> proposed adding a CI job, which is more CI minutes cost to
> the project, more work for maintainers when something that
> builds fine locally falls over in the CI, and so on).
>
> Each individual fix might be trivial, but they add up.
> So it matters whether this one is "this is the only thing
> we tripped over since 2024" or "we just rebased to a new
> QEMU version and are going to be submitting dozens of these
> over the next few weeks".
>
>> See for example non-invasive commit 7246c4cc470 ("exec: don't use void*
>> in pointer arithmetic in headers"):
>
>> or commit 17c7df806b3 ("exec: avoid using C++ keywords in function
>> parameters"):
>
> For the record, I wasn't really enthusiastic about those changes
> either, for essentially the same reasons.

+1

[...]