On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Michael Roth <mdr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 05:57:42PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 21/09/2012 16:07, Michael Roth ha scritto:
>> >
>> > QIDL_DECLARE(SerialDevice) {
>> > SysBusDevice parent;
>> >
>> > uint8_t thr; /* transmit holding register */
>> > uint8_t lsr; /* line status register */
>> > uint8_t ier; /* interrupt enable register */
>> >
>> > int int_pending qDerived; /* whether we have a pending queued
>> > interrupt */
>> > CharDriverState *chr qImmutable; /* backend */
>> > };
>>
>> I thought we agreed on QIDL(derived), QIDL(immutable) etc. These
>> prefixes just do not scale...
>
> qImmutable gets defined as QIDL(immutable) via qidl.h, and underneath
> the covers it's all QIDL(). So we can change them easily if need be, and
> still have the optional of using QIDL() for any current or new
> annotations that get introduced. But QIDL() just ends up being
> really noisey in practice, especially when a field has multiple
> annotations, so I'd like to make that kind of usage the exceptional
> case rather than the common one.
>
> I went with qUppercase because it avoids all the previous issues with
> using leading underscores, and it's reserved in terms of QEMU coding
> guidelines as far as I can tell (we generally require leading capital
> for typedefs and lowercase for variable names, and can work around
> exceptions on a case by case basis by using QIDL() or some other name).
> I also had it as q_* for a bit but that didn't seem much better on the
> eyes we looking at converted structures.
It looks like Hungarian notation and very much unlike other QEMU code.
I'd use q_ or qidl_ prefix instead, or rather QIDL().
>
>>
>> Paolo
>>
