On 09/23/2015 03:43 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Commit 1e6c1616 was where we quit burning the C member name 'base'. >> Prior to that time, members of base classes did not clash with variant >> names because of the C boxing. > > For union types. For struct types, we still box the base. I'd like to > get rid of that.
Patch 34/46 :)
>
> Even when the base is boxed, the members still clash in QMP.
>
> We also box the variants (e.g. UserDefA *value1 in the example above).
> Would be nice to get rid of that, too.
What do you mean? Here's an example of current boxed code:
enum EnumType {
ENUM_TYPE_ONE,
ENUM_TYPE_TWO,
};
struct One {
int a;
};
struct Two {
char *a;
};
struct Union {
EnumType type;
/* union tag is @type */
union {
One *one;
Two *two;
};
};
Is this what you envision for unboxed? Note that we still have to
namespace things properly (we have to have union.one.a and union.two.a,
and not a direct union.a), so all we'd be saving is the additional
allocation of the variant pointers.
struct Union {
EnumType type;
/* union tag is @type */
union {
struct {
int a;
} one;
struct {
char *a;
} two;
};
};
However, I'm not sure it would always help. The conversion of
netdev_add to full qapi relies on being able to access the variant
through a named struct (such as NetdevTapOptions); unboxing the variant
would get rid of the convenient access to these named sub-structs.
--
Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
