From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>,
QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
Subject: Re: tidying up osdep.h
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 11:10:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y2djewvy.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA95ZobYrOaDA4O4ESWNAKkMi-y8QUGoVQRkC2ujbtNeSA@mail.gmail.com> (Peter Maydell's message of "Wed, 14 Apr 2021 20:17:04 +0100")
Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:
> (cc'ing people related to the recent 'extern "C"' patches and also
> randomly Markus as somebody who's had opinions on header cleanups
> in the past...)
>
> osdep.h as it stands today is a mix of two things:
> (1) it has the "must be included by everybody" items:
> (a) config-host.h, poison.h, compiler.h
> (b) things which must be done before any system header is included
> (like defining __STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS or WIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN)
> (c) includes of system headers which we need to then fix up for
> portability issues (eg redefining assert on mingw, defining
> fallback versions of missing macros)
> (2) it has declarations for a library of QEMU functions, some of which
> typically wrap and abstract away OS specifics (like qemu_create(),
> qemu_unlink()), and some of which seem to have just been dumped
> in here for convenience (like qemu_hw_version())
It's such a convenient dumping ground :)
> Every file needs (1), which is why we mandate osdep.h as the first
> include; most files don't need a lot of the things in (2) (for instance
> qemu_hw_version() is used in just half a dozen .c files). Is it worth
> trying to split some of the type (2) items out into their own header files?
>
> I suspect that the advantages would be primarily just making osdep.h
> a bit clearer to read and less of an "attractive nuisance" for new
> additions; I imagine the bulk of the extra compilation time represented
> by osdep.h is going to be because it pulls in dozens of system
> headers, most of which are going to be required under heading (1).
I agree that keeping it focused on (1) would be cleaner, and that such a
cleanup probably won't speed up builds. Regarding your question whether
the cleanup is worth the bother: I guess if somebody posts patches, it
is.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-15 9:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-14 19:17 tidying up osdep.h Peter Maydell
2021-04-15 8:59 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2021-04-15 14:55 ` Markus Armbruster
2021-04-15 9:10 ` Markus Armbruster [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87y2djewvy.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org \
--to=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).