| Message ID | 1525376963-79623-5-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | include path cleanup | expand |
On 03.05.2018 21:50, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > we just need a struct name, let's add a forward > declaration instead of an include. > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > --- > include/hw/s390x/sclp.h | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h b/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h > index f9db243..6e65150 100644 > --- a/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h > +++ b/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h > @@ -16,7 +16,8 @@ > > #include "hw/sysbus.h" > #include "hw/qdev.h" > -#include "target/s390x/cpu-qom.h" > + > +typedef struct CPUS390XState CPUS390XState; IIRC you have to use include/qemu/typedefs.h instead to avoid trouble with older versions of GCC. Thomas
On Fri, 4 May 2018 02:24:12 +0200 Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote: > On 03.05.2018 21:50, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > we just need a struct name, let's add a forward > > declaration instead of an include. > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > > --- > > include/hw/s390x/sclp.h | 3 ++- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h b/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h > > index f9db243..6e65150 100644 > > --- a/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h > > +++ b/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h > > @@ -16,7 +16,8 @@ > > > > #include "hw/sysbus.h" > > #include "hw/qdev.h" > > -#include "target/s390x/cpu-qom.h" > > + > > +typedef struct CPUS390XState CPUS390XState; > > IIRC you have to use include/qemu/typedefs.h instead to avoid trouble > with older versions of GCC. Hm, I'm wondering why we do the typedef in cpu-qom.h, while other architectures do it in their cpu.h.
On 08.05.2018 15:23, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Fri, 4 May 2018 02:24:12 +0200 > Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 03.05.2018 21:50, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> we just need a struct name, let's add a forward >>> declaration instead of an include. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> include/hw/s390x/sclp.h | 3 ++- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h b/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h >>> index f9db243..6e65150 100644 >>> --- a/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h >>> +++ b/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h >>> @@ -16,7 +16,8 @@ >>> >>> #include "hw/sysbus.h" >>> #include "hw/qdev.h" >>> -#include "target/s390x/cpu-qom.h" >>> + >>> +typedef struct CPUS390XState CPUS390XState; >> >> IIRC you have to use include/qemu/typedefs.h instead to avoid trouble >> with older versions of GCC. > > Hm, I'm wondering why we do the typedef in cpu-qom.h, while other > architectures do it in their cpu.h. See: commit ef2974cc270d51959ce90df6b4d4d41635d7a603 Author: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> Date: Wed Sep 13 15:24:02 2017 +0200 target/s390x: move some s390x typedefs to cpu-qom.h This allows us to drop inclusion of cpu_models.h in cpu-qom.h, and prepares for using cpu-qom.h as a s390 specific version of typedefs.h Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> Message-Id: <20170913132417.24384-8-david@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> Thomas
On Tue, 8 May 2018 15:38:03 +0200 Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote: > On 08.05.2018 15:23, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Fri, 4 May 2018 02:24:12 +0200 > > Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> On 03.05.2018 21:50, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>> we just need a struct name, let's add a forward > >>> declaration instead of an include. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > >>> --- > >>> include/hw/s390x/sclp.h | 3 ++- > >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h b/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h > >>> index f9db243..6e65150 100644 > >>> --- a/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h > >>> +++ b/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h > >>> @@ -16,7 +16,8 @@ > >>> > >>> #include "hw/sysbus.h" > >>> #include "hw/qdev.h" > >>> -#include "target/s390x/cpu-qom.h" > >>> + > >>> +typedef struct CPUS390XState CPUS390XState; > >> > >> IIRC you have to use include/qemu/typedefs.h instead to avoid trouble > >> with older versions of GCC. > > > > Hm, I'm wondering why we do the typedef in cpu-qom.h, while other > > architectures do it in their cpu.h. > > See: > > commit ef2974cc270d51959ce90df6b4d4d41635d7a603 > Author: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> > Date: Wed Sep 13 15:24:02 2017 +0200 > > target/s390x: move some s390x typedefs to cpu-qom.h > > This allows us to drop inclusion of cpu_models.h in cpu-qom.h, and > prepares for using cpu-qom.h as a s390 specific version of typedefs.h > > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> > Message-Id: <20170913132417.24384-8-david@redhat.com> > Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> > > Thomas > > Gargh, this is all very confusing...
On 08.05.2018 15:45, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Tue, 8 May 2018 15:38:03 +0200 > Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 08.05.2018 15:23, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>> On Fri, 4 May 2018 02:24:12 +0200 >>> Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 03.05.2018 21:50, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>> we just need a struct name, let's add a forward >>>>> declaration instead of an include. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> include/hw/s390x/sclp.h | 3 ++- >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h b/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h >>>>> index f9db243..6e65150 100644 >>>>> --- a/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h >>>>> +++ b/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h >>>>> @@ -16,7 +16,8 @@ >>>>> >>>>> #include "hw/sysbus.h" >>>>> #include "hw/qdev.h" >>>>> -#include "target/s390x/cpu-qom.h" >>>>> + >>>>> +typedef struct CPUS390XState CPUS390XState; >>>> >>>> IIRC you have to use include/qemu/typedefs.h instead to avoid trouble >>>> with older versions of GCC. >>> >>> Hm, I'm wondering why we do the typedef in cpu-qom.h, while other >>> architectures do it in their cpu.h. >> >> See: >> >> commit ef2974cc270d51959ce90df6b4d4d41635d7a603 >> Author: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> >> Date: Wed Sep 13 15:24:02 2017 +0200 >> >> target/s390x: move some s390x typedefs to cpu-qom.h >> >> This allows us to drop inclusion of cpu_models.h in cpu-qom.h, and >> prepares for using cpu-qom.h as a s390 specific version of typedefs.h >> >> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> >> Message-Id: <20170913132417.24384-8-david@redhat.com> >> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> >> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> >> >> Thomas > > Gargh, this is all very confusing... If you'd ask me, I'd say we should get rid of the typedefs and do it the Linux kernel way and enforce using "struct xyz" everywhere, then you also do not have this problem with typedefs.h anymore ... but well, so far it seems as I'm still part of a minority with this opinion here. Thomas
On 05/08/2018 10:50 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 08.05.2018 15:45, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> On Tue, 8 May 2018 15:38:03 +0200 >> Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> On 08.05.2018 15:23, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>>> On Fri, 4 May 2018 02:24:12 +0200 >>>> Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 03.05.2018 21:50, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>>> we just need a struct name, let's add a forward >>>>>> declaration instead of an include. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> include/hw/s390x/sclp.h | 3 ++- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h b/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h >>>>>> index f9db243..6e65150 100644 >>>>>> --- a/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h >>>>>> +++ b/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h >>>>>> @@ -16,7 +16,8 @@ >>>>>> >>>>>> #include "hw/sysbus.h" >>>>>> #include "hw/qdev.h" >>>>>> -#include "target/s390x/cpu-qom.h" >>>>>> + >>>>>> +typedef struct CPUS390XState CPUS390XState; >>>>> >>>>> IIRC you have to use include/qemu/typedefs.h instead to avoid trouble >>>>> with older versions of GCC. >>>> >>>> Hm, I'm wondering why we do the typedef in cpu-qom.h, while other >>>> architectures do it in their cpu.h. >>> >>> See: >>> >>> commit ef2974cc270d51959ce90df6b4d4d41635d7a603 >>> Author: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> >>> Date: Wed Sep 13 15:24:02 2017 +0200 >>> >>> target/s390x: move some s390x typedefs to cpu-qom.h >>> >>> This allows us to drop inclusion of cpu_models.h in cpu-qom.h, and >>> prepares for using cpu-qom.h as a s390 specific version of typedefs.h >>> >>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> >>> Message-Id: <20170913132417.24384-8-david@redhat.com> >>> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> >>> >>> Thomas >> >> Gargh, this is all very confusing... > > If you'd ask me, I'd say we should get rid of the typedefs and do it the > Linux kernel way and enforce using "struct xyz" everywhere, then you > also do not have this problem with typedefs.h anymore ... but well, so > far it seems as I'm still part of a minority with this opinion here. Maybe not getting rid of the typedefs, but I agree with removing typedefs.h.
On 08.05.2018 16:06, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 05/08/2018 10:50 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 08.05.2018 15:45, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>> On Tue, 8 May 2018 15:38:03 +0200 >>> Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 08.05.2018 15:23, Cornelia Huck wrote: [...] >>>>> Hm, I'm wondering why we do the typedef in cpu-qom.h, while other >>>>> architectures do it in their cpu.h. >>>> >>>> See: >>>> >>>> commit ef2974cc270d51959ce90df6b4d4d41635d7a603 >>>> Author: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> >>>> Date: Wed Sep 13 15:24:02 2017 +0200 >>>> >>>> target/s390x: move some s390x typedefs to cpu-qom.h >>>> >>>> This allows us to drop inclusion of cpu_models.h in cpu-qom.h, and >>>> prepares for using cpu-qom.h as a s390 specific version of typedefs.h >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> >>>> Message-Id: <20170913132417.24384-8-david@redhat.com> >>>> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> >>>> >>>> Thomas >>> >>> Gargh, this is all very confusing... >> >> If you'd ask me, I'd say we should get rid of the typedefs and do it the >> Linux kernel way and enforce using "struct xyz" everywhere, then you >> also do not have this problem with typedefs.h anymore ... but well, so >> far it seems as I'm still part of a minority with this opinion here. > > Maybe not getting rid of the typedefs, but I agree with removing typedefs.h. But you need a way to do forward declarations ... thus you need something like typedefs.h as long as you use typedefs. Otherwise older versions of GCC will choke on multiple "typedef struct XyZ XyZ" statements. Thomas
diff --git a/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h b/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h index f9db243..6e65150 100644 --- a/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h +++ b/include/hw/s390x/sclp.h @@ -16,7 +16,8 @@ #include "hw/sysbus.h" #include "hw/qdev.h" -#include "target/s390x/cpu-qom.h" + +typedef struct CPUS390XState CPUS390XState; #define SCLP_CMD_CODE_MASK 0xffff00ff
we just need a struct name, let's add a forward declaration instead of an include. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> --- include/hw/s390x/sclp.h | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)