On 23 July 2013 23:12, Andreas Färber wrote:
> I wonder how many public fields do we actually have? Close to zero?
> Might there be a way to mark all fields of a struct as private at struct
> level, except for those explicitly marked up as public?
No, I don't think this is possible -- there is no
Am 24.07.2013 00:10, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> On 23 July 2013 23:08, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Anyway, before we get lost in a bikeshed discussion, if the
>> underscore'ization of the type names is to everyone's liking now, I
>> would very much like to queue the QOM cast patches on qom-next
>
> Wh
Am 23.07.2013 23:55, schrieb Alexander Graf:
> On 23.07.2013, at 23:52, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 23 July 2013 22:36, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>> Or maybe
>>>
>>> struct MyObject {
>>> PUBLIC_FIELDS
>>> __field int publicfield;
>>> PRIVATE_FIELDS
>>> __field int privatefield;
>>> }
>>
>> I
On 23 July 2013 23:08, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Anyway, before we get lost in a bikeshed discussion, if the
> underscore'ization of the type names is to everyone's liking now, I
> would very much like to queue the QOM cast patches on qom-next
Which particular patches (whole series?) ? I'll review
Am 23.07.2013 23:52, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> On 23 July 2013 22:36, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> Am 23.07.2013 um 23:16 schrieb Peter Maydell :
>>> On 23 July 2013 20:15, Peter Maydell wrote:
[C needing access to full struct definition for composite use]
I had a thought about this. Suppose we h
On 23.07.2013, at 23:52, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 23 July 2013 22:36, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 23.07.2013 um 23:16 schrieb Peter Maydell :
>>
>>> On 23 July 2013 20:15, Peter Maydell wrote:
I had a thought about this. Suppose we have our class header
files do something li
On 23 July 2013 22:36, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
> Am 23.07.2013 um 23:16 schrieb Peter Maydell :
>
>> On 23 July 2013 20:15, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> I had a thought about this. Suppose we have our class header
>>> files do something like this:
>>>
>>> #ifdef MYCLASS_IMPLEMENTATION
>>> #define P
Am 23.07.2013 um 23:16 schrieb Peter Maydell :
> On 23 July 2013 20:15, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 23 July 2013 03:43, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>> v2 improves internal vs. "public" header separation for GIC.
>>> As before, no feedback was received to address PMM's QOM concerns,
>>> so this is wh
On 23 July 2013 20:15, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 23 July 2013 03:43, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> v2 improves internal vs. "public" header separation for GIC.
>> As before, no feedback was received to address PMM's QOM concerns,
>> so this is what we have as design patterns for the moment.
>
> I had
On 23 July 2013 03:43, Andreas Färber wrote:
> v2 improves internal vs. "public" header separation for GIC.
> As before, no feedback was received to address PMM's QOM concerns,
> so this is what we have as design patterns for the moment.
I had a thought about this. Suppose we have our class heade
From: Andreas Färber
Hello Peter,
This series fully QOM'ifies A9MPCore so that it can be embedded for Tegra2.
It goes on to do the same for A15MPCore, which had previously been taken as
template for Cortex-A57 by John Rigby.
Separate headers are introduced to only expose device state to whom as
11 matches
Mail list logo
