Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] RFC: Automatically check xen's public headers for C++ pitfalls.

[Don Slutz <dslutz@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 02/26/15 14:22, Tim Deegan wrote:
> At 19:49 +0200 on 26 Feb (1424976562), Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
>> On 02/26/2015 07:01 PM, Tim Deegan wrote:
>>> +#ifdef __cplusplus
>>> +/* 'private' is a keyword in C++, so we have to use a different name for
>>> + * private state there.  Leaving the C name alone to avoid unnecessary
>>> + * pain for the existing users. */
>>> +#define XEN_RING_PRIVATE pvt
>>> +#else
>>> +#define XEN_RING_PRIVATE private
>>> +#endif
>>
>> Are there likely to be many users outside of the ones using that code
>> with mem_event?
> 
> Yes, lots.  It's used to implement split drivers for net, block, etc.
> Most users will have taken copies of this header into their own trees,
> though, and so won't face build breakage, and this isn't an ABI change.
> 
> So far, I've seen David and Andrew in favour of just changing the
> field's name and letting out-of-tree users update their copies when/if
> they want to.  Jan would prefer to avoid changing the field name for C
> users.  I'm not delighted with any of these options but I think this
> ifdeffery is worse than the others. :)
> 
> Let's see what anyone else has to say.
> 

Since I am one of the user of C++ and Xen headers, I like this a lot.
I do not like the ifdeffery above.  I am in favour of just changing the
the field's name.

    -Don Slutz

> Cheers,
> 
> Tim.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
> 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel