From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Subject: Re: [PATCH kvm-unit-tests 2/4] Introduce a C++ wrapper for the kvm
 APIs
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:27:42 -0600
Message-ID: <4CED4B0E.3030805@codemonkey.ws>
References: <1290595933-13122-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> <1290595933-13122-3-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> <50DD1E97-0ECD-41E6-B6F8-1D78AA4A4876@suse.de> <4CED2416.1040102@codemonkey.ws> <20101124154006.GE15111@redhat.com> <4CED344B.3030000@codemonkey.ws> <4CED3FE6.50900@redhat.com> <4CED41A0.8060003@redhat.com> <4CED4276.9090103@redhat.com> <4CED445E.30105@redhat.com> <4CED4629.2060804@redhat.com> <4CED4738.2020406@redhat.com> <4CED488D.40806@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>,
	Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-gy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174]:36044 "EHLO
	mail-gy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754937Ab0KXR2O (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:28:14 -0500
Received: by gyb11 with SMTP id 11so2915310gyb.19
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:28:14 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4CED488D.40806@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 11/24/2010 11:17 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> On 11/24/10 18:11, Avi Kivity wrote:
>    
>> On 11/24/2010 07:06 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>>      
>>> Sorry but that is utterly and completely bogus! The enforcement is only
>>> as good as the developers and maintainers make it,
>>>        
>>    class File {
>>    public:
>>        virtual ~File() {}
>>        virtual void read(...) = 0;
>>        virtual void write(...) = 0;
>>    };
>>
>> Anyone wishing to implement this interface is forced to implement read
>> and write methods (callbacks) with exactly the right signature.  The
>> compiler will complain if they don't.  So if File is a good interface,
>> we can make the compiler force people to use it correctly.
>>
>> We can emulate this in C with ->ops->  things, but that's just
>> boilerplate and more places for people to get things wrong, or lazy and
>> take shortcuts.
>>      
> In the mean time we spend our time debugging the runtime because the
> virtual functions don't behave as expected. In C we know what is going
> on, in C++ it is pray and hope.
>    

The alternative in C is:

struct file_operations {
    void (*release)(void);
    void (*read)(...);
    void (*write)(...);
};

struct file {
   struct file_operations *ops;
};

If I do:

static file_operations posix_file_ops = {
   .read = posix_file_read,
   .write = posix_file_write,
};

struct posix_file {
   struct file parent;
   int fd;
};

void posix_file_init(struct posix_file *obj)
{
     obj->parent.ops = posix_file_ops;
     obj->fd = ...;
};

The compiler won't generate an error.  Only upon a call to 
file_release() will a null pointer dereference happens whereas in C++, 
because this paradigm is structured in the language, the compiler can 
help assist you.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Jes
>