On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 11:45:41AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 09:40, Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote: > > IMHO we should get rid of mandating typedefs. They are causing too much > > trouble - e.g. do you also remember the issues with duplicated typedefs > > in certain compiler versions in the past? (these should be hopefully > > gone now, but still...) > > > > And many QEMU developers are also working on the Linux kernel, which > > rather forbids typedefs. Having to switch your mind back and forth > > whether to use typedefs or not is really annoying. > > I would rather keep typedefs -- it's one of the style issues we're > reasonably consistent with. QEMU isn't the kernel, and its style > is not the same on many points. If we switch to "use 'struct Foo'" > we'll have a codebase which becomes rapidly very inconsistent > about whether we use 'struct' or not.
I tend to agree - while people may work on kernel code, plenty do not work on kernel code & QEMU is not following kernel code pratices more generally. I think it is more compelling to align with glib given that it is a core part of QEMU codebase. I'd much rather QEMU more closely align with glib and increasingly drop stuff that QEMU has reinvented in favour of using GLib features. For example I could see GObject as a base for QOM in future, and typedefs are a normal practice in this case. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
