On 23/10/15 15:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 23.10.15 at 16:31, <ian.campb...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2015-10-23 at 08:16 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> No, the validating script is a nice-to-have, but nothing more. What
>>> I was referring to was a patch to drop the use of this gcc extension.
>>
>> Then I'm confused. This patch turns a typeof into a __typeof__. In <
>> 56126d8702000078000a8...@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> you said "typeof() is a
>> gcc extension".
>>
>> Are you now saying that __typeof__ also a gcc extension too?
>>
>> I was under the impression that __typeof__ was standard (by some cxx at
>> least) and your mail reinforced that (possibly wrong) impression.
>
> There's no typeof or __typeof__ in C11 or any earlier standard.
> I'm sorry if earlier replies of mine gave a different impression.
>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Typeof.html also says that "If you are
>> writing a header file that must work when included in ISO C programs, write
>> __typeof__ instead of typeof", which also lead me to believe __typeof__ was
>> OK from this PoV.
>
> That's solely to prevent name space issues - __typeof__ is a
> reserved name, while typeof isn't.
Thank you for the explanation. I think we can do the same as x86 does i.e:
#define set_xen_guest_handle_raw(hnd, val) \
do { if ( sizeof(hnd) == 8 ) *(uint64_t *)&(hnd) = 0; \
(hnd).p = val; \
} while ( 0 )
I will send a new version of this patch.
Regards,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
