From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KYPHV-0008I0-Iu
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:58:09 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KYPHT-0008Hm-VW
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:58:09 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=54426 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KYPHT-0008Hi-Pn
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:58:07 -0400
Received: from ag-out-0708.google.com ([72.14.246.251]:34429)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1KYPHT-0002q5-D6
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:58:07 -0400
Received: by ag-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id 31so7131906agc.5
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <48B5957F.3050000@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:57:19 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [patch] add byteordered types
References: <48B53E23.5040107@redhat.com>	<200808271456.57273.paul@codesourcery.com>	<48B56645.60206@redhat.com>	<20080827.084738.-674761106.imp@bsdimp.com>
	<48B56D8D.7050002@redhat.com> <48B5778E.8000709@codemonkey.ws>
	<48B57EB9.2050106@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <48B57EB9.2050106@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>

Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>   
>> Personally, I dislike the whole struct thing.  I even further dislike
>> having multiple sets of conversion functions that are used in different
>> places in the code.
>>
>> Are we sure that this is something that we want to do?
>>     
>
> As far I know this struct trick is the only way to have gcc check access
> to variables with an specific byteorder is done the correct way.  Avi
> sguuested that and I also think this checking would be useful.  I could
> live without that though if there is an agreement that we'll just stick
> with the current, unchecked cpu_to_<order><size> functions.
>   

Yeah, AFAIK, it's the only way to enforce this sort of thing but it's 
also ugly.  If we were starting from scratch, I could see the value in 
it but there's already a ton of code that's not going to be using this 
mechanism that noone is going to convert.  That makes me think there 
isn't going to be a lot of value in it and will lead to a lot of overall 
confusion.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> cheers,
>   Gerd
>
>
>