On 22 June 2017 at 19:08, Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 22.06.2017 19:50, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: >> Could do; I'm just not finding tiny header files with one or >> two entries each that useful.
Well, it means that the bulk of code that doesn't care about the types doesn't get its compilation fractionally slowed by having to parse the typedef anyway. In general I think we're drifting towards "have each .c file get fewer things automatically" rather than otherwise (eg more finely focused files rather than stuffing everything into qemu-common.h). > Do we really need these function typedefs at all? IMHO it's quite ugly > to hide such things in a typedef unless it is really necessary (and in > this case, it does not seem to be really necessary since it is only used > in a few places). So what about simply removing the typedefs in this case? I find function typedefs much more readable than having the function-types inline in function arguments and the like. This is all fairly rapidly heading into bikeshed territory though -- in the final analysis I don't think it matters much what we do. thanks -- PMM
