> On 28 Jan 2020, at 11:03, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 08:05:36PM +0100, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 26 Jan 2020, at 16:04, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 at 08:10, Christophe de Dinechin
>>> wrote:
I’m still puzzled as to w
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 08:05:36PM +0100, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
>
>
> > On 26 Jan 2020, at 16:04, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 at 08:10, Christophe de Dinechin
> > wrote:
> >> I’m still puzzled as to why anybody would switch to something like
> >> GObject when there
Christophe de Dinechin writes:
>> On 26 Jan 2020, at 16:04, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 at 08:10, Christophe de Dinechin
>> wrote:
[...]
>> You'd have more luck persuading me we should move to Rust:
>> at least then we'd get some clear benefits (no more buffer
>> overrun sec
> On 26 Jan 2020, at 16:04, Peter Maydell wrote:
>
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 at 08:10, Christophe de Dinechin
> wrote:
>> I’m still puzzled as to why anybody would switch to something like
>> GObject when there is C++.
>
> I'm fairly strongly against using C++.
Just to be clear, so am I ;-)
>
> On 26 Jan 2020, at 10:11, Marc-André Lureau
> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 9:10 AM Christophe de Dinechin
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 21 Jan 2020, at 16:11, Marc-André Lureau
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 7:01 PM Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>
> On 26 Jan 2020, at 17:47, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 26/01/20 10:11, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
>>> I’m still puzzled as to why anybody would switch to something like
>>> GObject when there is C++.
>> C++ is another level of complexity.
>>
>> Replacing QOM with GObject would mainly bring us
On 26/01/20 10:11, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
>> I’m still puzzled as to why anybody would switch to something like
>> GObject when there is C++.
> C++ is another level of complexity.
>
> Replacing QOM with GObject would mainly bring us a more solid type
> system with better tooling/features, gobjec
On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 at 08:10, Christophe de Dinechin
wrote:
> I’m still puzzled as to why anybody would switch to something like
> GObject when there is C++.
I'm fairly strongly against using C++. C++'s language design
is an "everything including the kitchen sink, lots of "this
is here for back c
Hi
On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 9:10 AM Christophe de Dinechin
wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 21 Jan 2020, at 16:11, Marc-André Lureau
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 7:01 PM Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >>
> >> Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 02:36:17PM +010
> On 21 Jan 2020, at 16:11, Marc-André Lureau
> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 7:01 PM Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>
>> Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 02:36:17PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Marc-André Lureau writes:
> Hi
>
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 09:28, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 25/01/20 05:44, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> > I try to find a good reason qom was chosen over gobject, and I can't
> > find it.
>
> The main reasons were integration with QAPI, and the object tree.
> Though everything I say here is a kind of
On 25/01/20 05:44, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> On 22/01/20 13:42, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> > From the top of my mind, this is the pain point when trying to use
> GObject:
> > - static/inlined object, not supported by GObject, unlikely to ever be
> > - few users in qemu, transit
Hi
Le ven. 24 janv. 2020 à 19:32, Paolo Bonzini a écrit :
> On 22/01/20 13:42, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> > From the top of my mind, this is the pain point when trying to use
> GObject:
> > - static/inlined object, not supported by GObject, unlikely to ever be
> > - few users in qemu, transition
On 22/01/20 13:42, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> From the top of my mind, this is the pain point when trying to use GObject:
> - static/inlined object, not supported by GObject, unlikely to ever be
> - few users in qemu, transition possible.
> - 64k limit of GObject, for some reason, unlikely to chang
Marc-André Lureau writes:
> Hi
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:25 PM Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>
>> Alex Bennée writes:
>>
>> > Marc-André Lureau writes:
>> >> Actually, we are not that far off from being able to use GObject
>> >> altogether (I hacked something like that to play with), but I
>>
Hi
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:28 PM Peter Maydell wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:42, Marc-André Lureau
> wrote:
> > From the top of my mind, this is the pain point when trying to use GObject:
> > - static/inlined object, not supported by GObject, unlikely to ever be
> > - few users in qemu,
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:42, Marc-André Lureau
wrote:
> From the top of my mind, this is the pain point when trying to use GObject:
> - static/inlined object, not supported by GObject, unlikely to ever be
> - few users in qemu, transition possible.
Isn't there lots of use of this in the device e
Hi
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:25 PM Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
> Alex Bennée writes:
>
> > Marc-André Lureau writes:
> >> Actually, we are not that far off from being able to use GObject
> >> altogether (I hacked something like that to play with), but I
> >> disgress...
> >
> > As a mostly hands
Alex Bennée writes:
> Marc-André Lureau writes:
>> Actually, we are not that far off from being able to use GObject
>> altogether (I hacked something like that to play with), but I
>> disgress...
>
> As a mostly hands off observer who mainly c&p's QOM code when he has to
> I have to ask is this
Marc-André Lureau writes:
> Hi
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 7:01 PM Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
>> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 02:36:17PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> >> static const TypeInfo char_type_info = {
>> >> .name = TYPE_FOO,
>> >> .
Peter Maydell writes:
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 15:11, Marc-André Lureau
> wrote:
>> There are plenty of refactoring to do. The problem when touching the
>> whole code-base, imho, is review time. It may take a couple of
>> hours/days to come up with a cocci/spatch, and make various patches
>> her
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 15:11, Marc-André Lureau
wrote:
> There are plenty of refactoring to do. The problem when touching the
> whole code-base, imho, is review time. It may take a couple of
> hours/days to come up with a cocci/spatch, and make various patches
> here and there. But it takes often
Hi
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 7:01 PM Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
> Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 02:36:17PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> Marc-André Lureau writes:
> >>
> >> > Hi
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 3:32 PM Stefan Hajnoczi
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 02:36:17PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Marc-André Lureau writes:
>>
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 3:32 PM Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 06:42:47AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> >> > Stefan
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 02:36:17PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Marc-André Lureau writes:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 3:32 PM Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 06:42:47AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> > Stefan Hajnoczi writes:
> >> >
> >> > > On W
Marc-André Lureau writes:
> Hi
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 3:32 PM Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 06:42:47AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> > Stefan Hajnoczi writes:
>> >
>> > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 01:15:17PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> > >> Christophe de Di
26 matches
Mail list logo
