On 6/9/22 10:57, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 10:47:24AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 08/06/2022 17.51, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> On 6/3/22 19:35, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>> On 03/06/2022 19.26, Claudio Fontana wrote: >>>>> On 6/3/22 18:42, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>>>> The disassembly via capstone should be superiour to our old vixl >>>>>> sources nowadays, so let's finally cut this old disassembler out >>>>>> of the QEMU source tree. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> >>>>> >>>>> agreed, one thought: at the time I added this thing, I had to >>>>> add C++ compilation support, >>>>> maybe something we can now drop if there are no more C++ users? >>>> >>>> I thought about that, too, but we still have disas/nanomips.cpp left >>>> and the Windows-related files in qga/vss-win32/* . >>> >>> That is pure C++ so it does not need the extra complication of "detect >>> whether the C and C++ compiler are ABI-compatible" (typically due to >>> different libasan/libtsan implementation between gcc and clang). So >>> it's really just nanoMIPS that's left. >> >> Ok, so the next theoretical question is: If we get rid of the nanomips.cpp >> file or convert it to plain C, would we then simplify the code in configure >> again (and forbid C++ for the main QEMU code), or would we rather keep the >> current settings in case we want to re-introduce more C++ code again in the >> future? > > It doesn't feel very compelling to have just 1 source file that's > C++ in QEMU. I'm curious how we ended up with this nanomips.cpp > file - perhaps it originated from another project that was C++ > based ? > > The code itself doesn't look like it especially needs to be using > C++. There's just 1 class there and every method is associated > with that class, and external entry point from the rest of QEMU > is just one boring method. Feels like it could easily have been > done in C. > > Personally I'd prefer it to be converted to C, and if we want to > add any C++ in future it should be justified & debated on its > merits, rather than as an artifact of any historical artifacts > such as the code in configure happening to still exist. > > With regards, > Daniel
I'll take a look at it, maybe I can turn it to C fairly quickly. Ciao, Claudio
