On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 06:46:53PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 28 August 2012 18:32, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > What about _t in POSIX? That seems fairly safe if name is long and qemu
> > specific enough.
>
> Depends what you mean by "safe". The spec says "don't use this";
> it isn't any
On 28 August 2012 18:32, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> What about _t in POSIX? That seems fairly safe if name is long and qemu
> specific enough.
Depends what you mean by "safe". The spec says "don't use this";
it isn't any different to the __ and _[A-Z] prohibitions in that
respect.
Other posix n
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 09:33:16PM +0400, malc wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012, Peter Maydell wrote:
>
> > On 28 August 2012 18:21, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > We are talking about stuff like __kvm_pv_eoi - so the chance is exactly 0.
> > > And if it does happen then you run a simple script and
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 06:27:59PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 28 August 2012 18:21, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > We are talking about stuff like __kvm_pv_eoi - so the chance is exactly 0.
> > And if it does happen then you run a simple script and fix
> > this one instance.
>
> Why not just
Am 28.08.2012 18:01, schrieb Michael S. Tsirkin:
> We copied HACKING from libvirt but it has some bogus stuff:
> neither underscore capital, double underscore, or underscore 't' suffixes
> are reserved in Posix/C: this appears to be based on misreading of the
> C standard. Using sane prefixes is en
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 28 August 2012 18:21, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > We are talking about stuff like __kvm_pv_eoi - so the chance is exactly 0.
> > And if it does happen then you run a simple script and fix
> > this one instance.
>
> Why not just use a name that doe
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 06:23:38PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 28 August 2012 18:18, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 05:24:40PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> C99 7.1.3
> >> reserves underscore capital and double underscore prefixes.
> >
> > This is taking it out of c
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 05:24:40PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On 28 August 2012 17:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > We copied HACKING from libvirt but it has some bogus stuff:
> > > neither underscore capital, double underscore, or undersco
On 28 August 2012 18:21, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> We are talking about stuff like __kvm_pv_eoi - so the chance is exactly 0.
> And if it does happen then you run a simple script and fix
> this one instance.
Why not just use a name that doesn't use a double underscore
in the first place? The C
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 05:13:24PM +, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > We copied HACKING from libvirt but it has some bogus stuff:
>> > neither underscore capital, double underscor
On 28 August 2012 18:18, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 05:24:40PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> C99 7.1.3
>> reserves underscore capital and double underscore prefixes.
>
> This is taking it out of context - reserved means different
> things in different parts of the spec.
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 05:13:24PM +, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > We copied HACKING from libvirt but it has some bogus stuff:
> > neither underscore capital, double underscore, or underscore 't' suffixes
> > are reserved in Posix/C: this a
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 05:24:40PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 28 August 2012 17:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > We copied HACKING from libvirt but it has some bogus stuff:
> > neither underscore capital, double underscore, or underscore 't' suffixes
> > are reserved in Posix/C: this appear
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> We copied HACKING from libvirt but it has some bogus stuff:
> neither underscore capital, double underscore, or underscore 't' suffixes
> are reserved in Posix/C: this appears to be based on misreading of the
> C standard. Using sane pre
On 28 August 2012 17:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> We copied HACKING from libvirt but it has some bogus stuff:
> neither underscore capital, double underscore, or underscore 't' suffixes
> are reserved in Posix/C: this appears to be based on misreading of the
> C standard. Using sane prefixes is
We copied HACKING from libvirt but it has some bogus stuff:
neither underscore capital, double underscore, or underscore 't' suffixes
are reserved in Posix/C: this appears to be based on misreading of the
C standard. Using sane prefixes is enough to avoid conflicts.
These rules are also widely vio
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 07:01:16PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> We copied HACKING from libvirt but it has some bogus stuff:
> neither underscore capital, double underscore, or underscore 't' suffixes
> are reserved in Posix/C: this appears to be based on misreading of the
> C standard. Using
17 matches
Mail list logo
