On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 2:11 PM Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> writes: > > > Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com> writes: > > > >> Hi > >> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 9:42 PM Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com> writes: > >>> > >>> > Wrap generated enum/struct members and code with #if/#endif, using the > >>> > >>> enum and struct members > >> > >> ok > >> > >>> > >>> > .ifcond members added in the previous patches. > >>> > > >>> > Some types generate both enum and struct members for example, so a > >>> > step-by-step is unnecessarily complicated to deal with (it would > >>> > easily generate invalid intermediary code). > >>> > >>> Can you give an example of a schema definition that would lead to > >>> complications? > >>> > >> > >> Honestly, I don't remember well (it's been a while I wrote that code). > > > > I know... > > > >> It must be related to implicit enums, such as union kind... If there > >> is no strong need to split this patch, I would rather not do that > >> extra work. > > > > I'm not looking for reasons to split this patch, I'm looking for > > stronger reasons to keep it just like it is :) > > > > Your hunch that complications would arise for simple unions plausible: > > there the same conditional needs to be applied both to the C enum's > > member and the C union member. > > > > For the generated C code to compile, each union tag enum member > > conditional must imply the corresponding variant conditional. > > > > For flat unions, the two are separate. The QAPI generator makes no > > effort to check the enum member's if condition implies the union > > variant's if condition; if you mess them up in the schema, you get to > > deal with the C compilation errors. > > > > For simple unions, the two are one. > > > > If we separate the generator updates for enums and for union members, > > and do enum members first, then unions with conditional tag members > > can't compile. Corrollary: simple unions with conditional variants > > can't compile. > > > > What if we do union members first? > > > > Again, I'm not asking for patch splitting here, I'm just trying to > > arrive at a clearer understanding to avoid making insufficiently > > supported claims in the commit message. The combined patch looks small > > and clean enough to keep it combined. > > > > [...] > > What about this commit message: > > qapi: Add #if conditions to generated code members > > Wrap generated enum and struct members and their supporting code with > #if/#endif, using the .ifcond members added in the previous patches. > > We do enum and struct in a single patch because union tag enum and the > associated variants tie them together, and dealing with that to split > the patch doesn't seem worthwhile. >
ack, thanks -- Marc-André Lureau
