* Peter Maydell (peter.mayd...@linaro.org) wrote: > 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).
At the cost of things getting fractionally slower by including lots more tiny headers. I generally agree in the case where there's a useful chunk, but when it's down to one or two definitions I don't see the point. > > 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. Agreed. Dave > thanks > -- PMM -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
