From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MgLv2-0000YQ-J7
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:04:20 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MgLuv-0000Tm-DC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:04:19 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57460 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MgLuu-0000TZ-Vb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:04:13 -0400
Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:43471)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <jamie@shareable.org>) id 1MgLuu-00007p-6e
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:04:12 -0400
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:04:02 +0100
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Coding style,
	C++ compatible code (was Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 02/22] eepro100:
	cast a void * makes no sense)
Message-ID: <20090826170402.GA25726@shareable.org>
References: <cover.1251111439.git.quintela@redhat.com>
	<51486eb6860d1680c1bce45e310dcd3aae096f43.1251111439.git.quintela@redhat.com>
	<4A928DF0.9000106@weilnetz.de> <87tyzxnwvb.fsf@pike.pond.sub.org>
	<4A953E20.8080806@mail.berlios.de> <4A954B61.4010708@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4A954B61.4010708@redhat.com>
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.gnu.org/pipermail/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: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>   Hi,
> 
> >Why don't we declare structures like this: typedef struct { ... } T;?
> >I suggest this to be the new coding style for structure declarations
> >because it is shorter, C++ compatible and unambiguous.
> 
> There are quite a few cases where this will simply not work.  They 
> usually use a slightly different declaration style though:
...
> (1) structs pointing to each other, like this:
> 
> typedef struct A A;
> typedef struct B B;

You can use "typedef struct _A A" to be C++ compatible, but it fails
to be shorter so I wouldn't recommend it ;-)

-- Jamie