Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> writes: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 11:37:44AM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: [...] >> I remember this post from Daniel where he suggests sticking to GLib >> G_N_ELEMENTS() (which looks similar to your suggestion): >> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-11/msg02676.html >> >> $ git grep G_N_ELEMENTS|wc -l >> 125 >> $ git grep ARRAY_SIZE|wc -l >> 939 >> >> Now it is not obvious to me to understand which GLib API we are >> encouraged to use and which ones we shouldn't. > > We have a bunch of duplication that is essentially a historical > artifact from before we used GLib in QEMU. IMHO, if GLib provides > something that is equivalent with no functional downside that > matters to QEMU, then there's no reason to keep QEMU's duplicate. > > IOW, I would always prefer GLib unless there's a compelling reason > not to in order to minimize what we maintain ourselves
Without a tree-wide sweep, we won't ever stop maintaining ARRAY_SIZE(). As long as we maintain it anyway, I'd prefer it over G_N_ELEMENTS() myself, because I consider latter name in poor taste: elements of *what*?
