From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce QEMU_NEW() Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:24:36 +0300 Message-ID: <4E2D8AB4.3090106@redhat.com> References: <1311583872-362-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> <4E2D876C.3010300@redhat.com> <4E2D8896.7070100@codemonkey.ws> <4E2D8904.5080200@redhat.com> <4E2D89C7.8010004@redhat.com> <4E2D89E1.20401@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org To: Jes Sorensen Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4E2D89E1.20401@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 07/25/2011 06:21 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote: > On 07/25/11 17:20, Avi Kivity wrote: > > On 07/25/2011 06:17 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote: > >> Using the commands consistently does have an impact, and at least with > >> qemu_malloc() it is obvious what they are and how they behave. The > >> proposed macros on the other hand requires everybody to go look up the > >> macro to find out what it is trying to do. > > > > That's true for every single function and macro that qemu defines. > > > > Of course, and every time it adds complexity for reading it. In this > particular case it seems to simply make the code worse for no gain. I guess type safety doesn't matter to you. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:39567) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QlN1Q-0001SG-7C for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:24:45 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QlN1P-0003db-8v for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:24:44 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54368) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QlN1O-0003dU-VW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:24:43 -0400 Message-ID: <4E2D8AB4.3090106@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:24:36 +0300 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1311583872-362-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> <4E2D876C.3010300@redhat.com> <4E2D8896.7070100@codemonkey.ws> <4E2D8904.5080200@redhat.com> <4E2D89C7.8010004@redhat.com> <4E2D89E1.20401@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4E2D89E1.20401@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Introduce QEMU_NEW() List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jes Sorensen Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 07/25/2011 06:21 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote: > On 07/25/11 17:20, Avi Kivity wrote: > > On 07/25/2011 06:17 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote: > >> Using the commands consistently does have an impact, and at least with > >> qemu_malloc() it is obvious what they are and how they behave. The > >> proposed macros on the other hand requires everybody to go look up the > >> macro to find out what it is trying to do. > > > > That's true for every single function and macro that qemu defines. > > > > Of course, and every time it adds complexity for reading it. In this > particular case it seems to simply make the code worse for no gain. I guess type safety doesn't matter to you. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function