* Peter Maydell (peter.mayd...@linaro.org) wrote: > On 22 June 2017 at 18:03, Juan Quintela <quint...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Greg Kurz <gr...@kaod.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:14:08 +0100 > >> Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > >> > >>> On 22 June 2017 at 17:06, Greg Kurz <gr...@kaod.org> wrote: > >>> > Function types cannot reside in the same sorted list as opaque types > >>> > since > >>> > they may depend on a type which would be defined later. > >>> > > >>> > Of course, the same problem could arise if a function type depends on > >>> > another function type with greater alphabetical order. Hopefully we > >>> > don't have that at this time. > >>> > >>> The other approach would be to put function types somewhere > >>> else and leave typedefs.h for the simple 'opaque types > >>> for structures' that it was started as. > >>> > >>> For instance we have include/qemu/fprintf-fn.h as a precedent. > >>> > >> > >> Indeed, and I'm not quite sure why Juan decided to put these types into > >> typedefs.h instead of a dedicated header file in include/migration... is > >> it only because it was the quickest fix ? > > > > All other typedefs were defined there. I can create a different include > > file, but I think that is "overengineering", no? They are typedefs, > > just not of structs. But I agree that they are the only ones. > > Well, the comment in the file says "opaque types so that device init > declarations don't have to pull in all the real definitions", whereas > the ones you've added aren't opaque types, they are the real > definitions. They're also only used by a very small subset of .c > files, whereas typedefs.h goes everywhere.
mv fprintf-fn.f fn-typedefs.h move those two defs into that? Dave > thanks > -- PMM -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
