From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LpizN-0007ue-LP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 08:59:17 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LpizI-0007tX-R6
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 08:59:17 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=34882 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LpizI-0007tS-H8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 08:59:12 -0400
Received: from yx-out-1718.google.com ([74.125.44.157]:17911)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1LpizI-0000kA-63
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 08:59:12 -0400
Received: by yx-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 34so627049yxf.82
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 05:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <49D60814.9020703@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:59:00 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Introduce module API to QEMU
References: <1238724755-15929-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0904030626380.4765@linmac.oyster.ru>	<49D58424.7050605@us.ibm.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0904030741020.2308@linmac.oyster.ru>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0904030741020.2308@linmac.oyster.ru>
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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>

malc wrote:
> 4.1.2 comes from C90
>   

C99 would be a more reasonable thing to quote from since it updates C89.

>> So this is exactly the sort of thing that the standard is there to 
>> protect :-)
>>     
>
> No. Those are reserved for _any_ use. For example, 6.2.5 states:
>
>      31) An implementation may define new keywords that provide
>          alternative ways to designate  a  basic  (or  any  other)
>          type;  this does not violate the requirement that all
>          basic   types   be   different.    Implementation-defined
>          keywords  shall  have  the form of an identifier reserved
>          for any use as described in 7.1.3.
>   

I still think you're missing the fact that this is a variable that's 
provided by the compiler.  It's a GCC extension in the same way 
__attribute__ is.  The reason we have to declare the variables is 
because it's actually provided by the linker so GCC the front-end has no 
knowledge of these variables existence.

This isn't standard C99 but it certainly doesn't violate C99 either.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori