On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 05:52:47PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 21.09.2015 um 17:49 schrieb Eduardo Habkost: > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 04:43:29PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > >> The script used for converting from QEMUMachine had used one > >> DEFINE_MACHINE() per machine registered. In cases where multiple > >> machines are registered from one source file, avoid the excessive > >> generation of module init functions by reverting this unrolling. > > > > Why is that a problem? > > It's unnecessary code bloat and it blocks the usual QOM patterns. See > the follow-up series for an example where an abstract base type helps, > which your macro does not allow.
Do you have any numbers on the actual bloat impact? Personally, I think the reduction of boilerplate code is worth the extra bytes in the binary. Files that register lots of simple machine classes are exactly the use case I had in mind when adding the macro. About the cases where an abstract base type helps, I agree DEFINE_MACHINE isn't appropriate, but in those cases I would use a macro like DEFINE_PC_MACHINE to reduce boilerplate code anyway. But I don't mind too much either way: if the maintainer of the corresponding machine code prefers to not reduce boilerplate code using a macro, that's OK to me. I am happy now that QEMUMachine is gone. -- Eduardo
