On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 10:17:45PM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> The C99 standard chapter §6.7.2.2 point 4 mentions:
>
> Each enumerated type shall be compatible with char, a signed
> integer type, or an unsigned integer type. The choice of type
> is implementation-defined, but shall be capable of representing
> the values of all the members of the enumeration.
>
> Align with that recommendation by defining the typedef
> along with the enum.
What am I missing here - that text isn't talking about forward
declarations / typedefs ? It is just saying that the size of
an enum can vary betweeen compilers.
> For information, building with -Werror=pedantic was reporting:
>
> In file included from ../../ui/kbd-state.c:10:
> include/ui/kbd-state.h:12:14: error: ISO C forbids forward references to
> 'enum' types [-Werror,-Wpedantic]
> 12 | typedef enum QKbdModifier QKbdModifier;
> | ^
> ...
Compliance with -Wpedantic is a non-goal for QEMU. We long ago
declared that our goal was only to support GCC/CLang, with the
GNU dialect of C, explicitly *NOT* strict compliance with ISO C.
> diff --git a/include/ui/kbd-state.h b/include/ui/kbd-state.h
> index 1f37b932eb6..3522ebe51b9 100644
> --- a/include/ui/kbd-state.h
> +++ b/include/ui/kbd-state.h
> @@ -9,9 +9,7 @@
>
> #include "qapi/qapi-types-ui.h"
>
> -typedef enum QKbdModifier QKbdModifier;
Note this style...
> -
> -enum QKbdModifier {
> +typedef enum QKbdModifier {
> QKBD_MOD_NONE = 0,
>
> QKBD_MOD_SHIFT,
> @@ -23,7 +21,7 @@ enum QKbdModifier {
> QKBD_MOD_CAPSLOCK,
>
> QKBD_MOD__MAX
> -};
> +} QKbdModifier;
>
> typedef struct QKbdState QKbdState;
...is a match for this style we use with structs, so this patch is forcing
divergence in styles.
With regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
