On 31.08.2017 16:23, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
>>> +struct S390CPU;
>>
>> You define a "struct S390CPU" here ...
>>
>>> typedef struct S390CcwMachineState {
>>> /*< private >*/
>>> MachineState parent_obj;
>>>
>>> /*< public >*/
>>> + S390CPU **cpus;
>>
>> ... but use the typedef'ed S390CPU here ... looks somewhat suspicious, I
>> wonder whether the typedef is really in the right place?
>
> General question: how much do we care about headers that are not consistent?
>
> E.g. shall I forward declare or simply ignore if compilers don't bite me?
My remark was not so much about your patch, but about the original
definition instead: "struct S390CPU" is declared in target/s390x/cpu.h,
but "typedef struct S390CPU S390CPU" is in target/s390x/cpu-qom.h. I
think they should rather be declared in the same header file instead. Or
your "struct S390CPU;" forward declaration should go into cpu-qom.h
instead, right in front of the typedef.
Thomas
