Peter Xu writes:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 05:58:14PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
>> Fabiano Rosas writes:
>>
>> > Peter Xu writes:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 10:37:59PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
>> >>> QAPI_CLONE_MEMBERS is a better option than copying parameters one by
>> >>> one b
On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 05:58:14PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
> Fabiano Rosas writes:
>
> > Peter Xu writes:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 10:37:59PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
> >>> QAPI_CLONE_MEMBERS is a better option than copying parameters one by
> >>> one because it operates on the en
Fabiano Rosas writes:
> Peter Xu writes:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 10:37:59PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
>>> QAPI_CLONE_MEMBERS is a better option than copying parameters one by
>>> one because it operates on the entire struct and follows pointers. It
>>> also avoids the need to alter this f
On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 10:37:59PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
> QAPI_CLONE_MEMBERS is a better option than copying parameters one by
> one because it operates on the entire struct and follows pointers. It
> also avoids the need to alter this function every time a new parameter
> is added.
>
> Not
Peter Xu writes:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 10:37:59PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
>> QAPI_CLONE_MEMBERS is a better option than copying parameters one by
>> one because it operates on the entire struct and follows pointers. It
>> also avoids the need to alter this function every time a new parame
QAPI_CLONE_MEMBERS is a better option than copying parameters one by
one because it operates on the entire struct and follows pointers. It
also avoids the need to alter this function every time a new parameter
is added.
Note, since this is a deep clone, now we must free the TLS strings
before assi
