qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 00/16] arm: A9MPCore+A15MPCore QOM'ification


From: Alexander Graf
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 00/16] arm: A9MPCore+A15MPCore QOM'ification
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 23:55:44 +0200

On 23.07.2013, at 23:52, Peter Maydell wrote:

> On 23 July 2013 22:36, Alexander Graf <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Am 23.07.2013 um 23:16 schrieb Peter Maydell <address@hidden>:
>> 
>>> On 23 July 2013 20:15, Peter Maydell <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> I had a thought about this. Suppose we have our class header
>>>> files do something like this:
>>>> 
>>>> #ifdef MYCLASS_IMPLEMENTATION
>>>> #define PRIVATE
>>>> #else
>>>> #ifdef __GNUC__
>>>> #define PRIVATE __attribute__((deprecated("this is a private field")))
>>>> #else
>>>> #define PRIVATE
>>>> #endif
>>>> 
>>>> typedef struct MyObject {
>>>>  int publicfield;
>>>>  int privatefield PRIVATE;
>>>> } MyObject;
>>> 
>>> Forgot to say, but if people don't think this is an
>>> intrinsically terrible idea I'll put together a patch that
>>> does this sometime this week.
>> 
>> I like the idea, but could we make this slightly less upper case? Something 
>> like
>> 
>>  __private int privatefield;
>> 
>> feels more readable imho.
> 
> Well, __ is using the reserved namespace, but we could use something
> else, and it looks like gcc lets us put the attribute at the front.
> Since we'll want to undef whatever we pick after the struct is defined
> we can actually use pretty much anything without worrying about it
> stealing namespace.

Very nice :). And it aligns pretty well with the __user hint in Linux.

> (We could even use just 'private' if we didn't mind (a) not being
> able to compile with a C++ compiler and (b) confusing everybody
> completely :-))
> 
>> Or maybe
>> 
>> struct MyObject {
>>  PUBLIC_FIELDS
>>  __field int publicfield;
>>  PRIVATE_FIELDS
>>  __field int privatefield;
>> }
> 
> I can't see an obvious way to make those do the right
> thing with the C preprocessor... am I missing something?

No, I'm probably just daydreaming :). Macros can't redefine other defines, so 
this probably won't work....

So yes, prepending the visibility on every field seems to be the most straight 
forward choice.


Alex




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]