From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KYd2f-0006jt-9Q
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:39:45 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KYd2d-0006il-3l
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:39:44 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=53935 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KYd2c-0006id-Tw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:39:42 -0400
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:53587)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <kraxel@redhat.com>) id 1KYd2b-0003mJ-Vt
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:39:42 -0400
Message-ID: <48B66374.60706@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:36:04 +0200
From: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
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>
	<48B5957F.3050000@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <48B5957F.3050000@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>

Anthony Liguori wrote:
> 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.

Ok, I'll drop the whole struct and accessors stuff and resend with
simple typedefs instead.  So you can use le* and be* types, but it
basically is a documentation thing without gcc actually checking stuff.
 And the existing cpu_to_* macros will do just fine ;)

cheers,
  Gerd