From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:45265)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1RuUkk-0005c4-1L
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:01:34 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1RuUkf-0000dj-H4
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:01:30 -0500
Received: from mail-qy0-f173.google.com ([209.85.216.173]:45085)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1RuUkf-0000dP-1F
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:01:25 -0500
Received: by qcsc20 with SMTP id c20so3808595qcs.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:01:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4F3028D2.2060409@codemonkey.ws>
References: <1328237992-14953-1-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de>
	<1328237992-14953-4-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de>
	<4F3028D2.2060409@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 20:01:23 +0000
Message-ID: <CAFEAcA_4Q_iNC9Vju20S77ftQSLCyGDcsysMtLv5Ex1BSMTKUw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC v3 03/21] qom: Introduce CPU class
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_F=C3=A4rber?= <afaerber@suse.de>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 6 February 2012 19:24, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
> On 02/02/2012 08:59 PM, Andreas F=C3=A4rber wrote:

>> +#define CPU(obj) OBJECT_CHECK(CPU, (obj), TYPE_CPU)
>> +#define CPU_CLASS(class) OBJECT_CLASS_CHECK(CPUClass, (class), TYPE_CPU=
)
>> +#define CPU_GET_CLASS(obj) OBJECT_GET_CLASS(CPUClass, (obj), TYPE_CPU)
>> +
>> +typedef struct CPU CPU;
>
> If this doesn't result in a build error, then C is a worse language than =
I
> thought it was :-/
>
> But we definitely shouldn't have a typename and macro name of the same th=
ing
> and expect it to work...

The C standard says that function-like macros are only applied when
the function-like
macro name is followed by a '(' as the next preprocessing token, so this is=
n't
relying on any kind of gcc-specific behaviour.

Whether we *want* to do it is largely a style issue :-)

-- PMM