On 06/09/12 17:16, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 09.06.2012 17:03, schrieb Laszlo Ersek: >> On 06/08/12 17:35, Andreas Färber wrote: >>> From: Michael Roth <mdr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>> >>> This adds visitor interfaces for fixed-width integers types. >>> Implementing these in visitors is optional, otherwise we fall back to >>> visit_type_int() (int64_t) with some additional bounds checking to avoid >>> integer overflows for cases where the value fetched exceeds the bounds >>> of our target C type. >> >>> diff --git a/qapi/qapi-visit-core.h b/qapi/qapi-visit-core.h >>> index e850746..a19d70c 100644 >>> --- a/qapi/qapi-visit-core.h >>> +++ b/qapi/qapi-visit-core.h >>> @@ -52,6 +52,14 @@ struct Visitor >>> void (*start_handle)(Visitor *v, void **obj, const char *kind, >>> const char *name, Error **errp); >>> void (*end_handle)(Visitor *v, Error **errp); >>> + void (*type_uint8)(Visitor *v, uint8_t *obj, const char *name, Error >>> **errp); >>> + void (*type_uint16)(Visitor *v, uint16_t *obj, const char *name, Error >>> **errp); >>> + void (*type_uint32)(Visitor *v, uint32_t *obj, const char *name, Error >>> **errp); >>> + void (*type_uint64)(Visitor *v, uint64_t *obj, const char *name, Error >>> **errp); >>> + void (*type_int8)(Visitor *v, int8_t *obj, const char *name, Error >>> **errp); >>> + void (*type_int16)(Visitor *v, int16_t *obj, const char *name, Error >>> **errp); >>> + void (*type_int32)(Visitor *v, int32_t *obj, const char *name, Error >>> **errp); >>> + void (*type_int64)(Visitor *v, int64_t *obj, const char *name, Error >>> **errp); >>> }; >>> >>> void visit_start_handle(Visitor *v, void **obj, const char *kind, >>> @@ -69,6 +77,14 @@ void visit_end_optional(Visitor *v, Error **errp); >>> void visit_type_enum(Visitor *v, int *obj, const char *strings[], >>> const char *kind, const char *name, Error **errp); >>> void visit_type_int(Visitor *v, int64_t *obj, const char *name, Error >>> **errp); >>> +void visit_type_uint8(Visitor *v, uint8_t *obj, const char *name, Error >>> **errp); >>> +void visit_type_uint16(Visitor *v, uint16_t *obj, const char *name, Error >>> **errp); >>> +void visit_type_uint32(Visitor *v, uint32_t *obj, const char *name, Error >>> **errp); >>> +void visit_type_uint64(Visitor *v, uint64_t *obj, const char *name, Error >>> **errp); >>> +void visit_type_int8(Visitor *v, int8_t *obj, const char *name, Error >>> **errp); >>> +void visit_type_int16(Visitor *v, int16_t *obj, const char *name, Error >>> **errp); >>> +void visit_type_int32(Visitor *v, int32_t *obj, const char *name, Error >>> **errp); >>> +void visit_type_int64(Visitor *v, int64_t *obj, const char *name, Error >>> **errp); >>> void visit_type_bool(Visitor *v, bool *obj, const char *name, Error >>> **errp); >>> void visit_type_str(Visitor *v, char **obj, const char *name, Error >>> **errp); >>> void visit_type_number(Visitor *v, double *obj, const char *name, Error >>> **errp); >> >> Shouldn't "scripts/qapi.py" be extended accordingly? (The c_type function.) > > What does that affect? > Is it a blocker for this PULL or an improvement for a follow-up?
The latter. As long as nothing actually uses these types there's no problem. Laszlo
