Eric Blake writes:
> On 02/17/2016 07:40 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
> There's no reason to do two malloc's for an alternate type visiting
> a QAPI struct; let's just inline the struct directly as the C union
> branch of the struct.
>
>
>>> Also, here we pass 'obj'; visit_type_
On 02/17/2016 07:40 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
There's no reason to do two malloc's for an alternate type visiting
a QAPI struct; let's just inline the struct directly as the C union
branch of the struct.
>> Also, here we pass 'obj'; visit_type_FOO() had to pass '*obj' (agai
Eric Blake writes:
> On 02/16/2016 12:07 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Eric Blake writes:
>>
>>> There's no reason to do two malloc's for an alternate type visiting
>>> a QAPI struct; let's just inline the struct directly as the C union
>>> branch of the struct.
>>>
>>> Surprisingly, no clien
On 02/16/2016 12:07 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Eric Blake writes:
>
>> There's no reason to do two malloc's for an alternate type visiting
>> a QAPI struct; let's just inline the struct directly as the C union
>> branch of the struct.
>>
>> Surprisingly, no clients were actually using the str
Eric Blake writes:
> There's no reason to do two malloc's for an alternate type visiting
> a QAPI struct; let's just inline the struct directly as the C union
> branch of the struct.
>
> Surprisingly, no clients were actually using the struct member prior
> to this patch; some testsuite coverage
There's no reason to do two malloc's for an alternate type visiting
a QAPI struct; let's just inline the struct directly as the C union
branch of the struct.
Surprisingly, no clients were actually using the struct member prior
to this patch; some testsuite coverage is added to avoid future
regress
