From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28DEEC001DC for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2023 12:59:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qQSTD-0005my-5E; Mon, 31 Jul 2023 08:57:55 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qQSTB-0005ko-F0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 Jul 2023 08:57:53 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qQST9-0006re-Rh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 Jul 2023 08:57:53 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1690808270; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=UqFRRCBm8rvdP1fz9t29ZjC0w7b+yN6l3RfyjUw2uuU=; b=LCEN0zbcUSIu3DNjt5L7SBW9HnWWiDVTzIEmnjqoGG2EL2kjUJoF9jkRL7u8vsc4FFsTTU JRUzwCXJC9b66Hmc0BW05xmHdSL3/yauko2sx5M48L2YtCiCfuH5TiuT0GKVKLjRxBtyie FO7tJJKrfBcftQ3FO1wG88DPrO5hTnA= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (66.187.233.73 [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-50-rrprk1TZM9aYD9G30IGg1w-1; Mon, 31 Jul 2023 08:57:49 -0400 X-MC-Unique: rrprk1TZM9aYD9G30IGg1w-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FD1838149B3; Mon, 31 Jul 2023 12:57:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.42.28.195]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0F9C2166B25; Mon, 31 Jul 2023 12:57:46 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 13:57:43 +0100 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: Thomas Huth Cc: Peter Maydell , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, =?utf-8?Q?Marc-Andr=C3=A9?= Lureau , Stefan Weil , Yonggang Luo Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/6] include/qemu/compiler: Fix problem with gcc_struct and Clang Message-ID: References: <20230728142748.305341-1-thuth@redhat.com> <20230728142748.305341-6-thuth@redhat.com> <6ca265d4-0dad-3725-1cd5-84da685bc63a@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6ca265d4-0dad-3725-1cd5-84da685bc63a@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.9 (2022-11-12) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.6 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=berrange@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 11:10:58AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > Anyway, using bitfields in structs for exchanging data with the guest is > just way too error-prone, as you can see in the discussion about that > VTD_IR_TableEntry in my other patch. We should maybe advise against > bitfields in our coding style and point people to registerfields.h instead > for new code? ... so that we use QEMU_PACKED mainly for legacy code. Would > it then be OK for you, Peter, to go on with this approach? The registerfields.h usage doesn't seem to be documented at all from the quick look I had. IOW, in addition to a mention in coding style, it would be nice if someone can document the general usage pattern for it. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|