On 10/22/2015 07:54 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
> This is clever and ugly in equal measure. I respect that. Fortunately,
> it's also temporary.
>
>> Flat unions do not need the anonymous union for the tag member,
>> as we already fixed that to use the member name instead of 'kind'
>> back i
Eric Blake writes:
> We have two issues with our qapi union layout:
> 1) Even though the QMP wire format spells the tag 'type', the
> C code spells it 'kind', requiring some hacks in the generator.
> 2) The C struct uses an anonymous union, which places all tag
> values in the same namespace as a
Eric Blake writes:
> On 10/22/2015 07:54 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>>
>> This is clever and ugly in equal measure. I respect that. Fortunately,
>> it's also temporary.
>>
>>> Flat unions do not need the anonymous union for the tag member,
>>> as we already fixed that to use the member na
We have two issues with our qapi union layout:
1) Even though the QMP wire format spells the tag 'type', the
C code spells it 'kind', requiring some hacks in the generator.
2) The C struct uses an anonymous union, which places all tag
values in the same namespace as all non-variant members. This
le
