From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34615) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dO5ro-00049V-G2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 13:26:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dO5rl-0002C1-Az for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 13:26:04 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 18:25:55 +0100 From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Message-ID: <20170622172555.GE2100@work-vm> References: <149814756006.27338.8723356702388175951.stgit@bahia> <20170622184255.2d44e3bd@bahia.lab.toulouse-stg.fr.ibm.com> <87injo6jla.fsf@secure.mitica> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Separate function types from opaque types in include/qemu/typedefs.h List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Juan Quintela , Greg Kurz , QEMU Developers , QEMU Trivial * Peter Maydell (peter.maydell@linaro.org) wrote: > On 22 June 2017 at 18:03, Juan Quintela wrote: > > Greg Kurz wrote: > >> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:14:08 +0100 > >> Peter Maydell wrote: > >> > >>> On 22 June 2017 at 17:06, Greg Kurz wrote: > >>> > Function types cannot reside in the same sorted list as opaque types since > >>> > they may depend on a type which would be defined later. > >>> > > >>> > Of course, the same problem could arise if a function type depends on > >>> > another function type with greater alphabetical order. Hopefully we > >>> > don't have that at this time. > >>> > >>> The other approach would be to put function types somewhere > >>> else and leave typedefs.h for the simple 'opaque types > >>> for structures' that it was started as. > >>> > >>> For instance we have include/qemu/fprintf-fn.h as a precedent. > >>> > >> > >> Indeed, and I'm not quite sure why Juan decided to put these types into > >> typedefs.h instead of a dedicated header file in include/migration... is > >> it only because it was the quickest fix ? > > > > All other typedefs were defined there. I can create a different include > > file, but I think that is "overengineering", no? They are typedefs, > > just not of structs. But I agree that they are the only ones. > > Well, the comment in the file says "opaque types so that device init > declarations don't have to pull in all the real definitions", whereas > the ones you've added aren't opaque types, they are the real > definitions. They're also only used by a very small subset of .c > files, whereas typedefs.h goes everywhere. mv fprintf-fn.f fn-typedefs.h move those two defs into that? Dave > thanks > -- PMM -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK