On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 12:22:37PM -0700, Julien Grall wrote: > > > On 29/09/2016 12:11, Julien Grall wrote: > >Hi Jan, > > > >On 28/09/2016 23:04, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>>>On 28.09.16 at 21:42, <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote: > >>>Hi Jan, > >>> > >>>On 28/09/2016 05:00, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>>For consumers not using (fully) C99-aware compilers, limit the number > >>>>of places where tweaking of the headers would be necessary: Introduce > >>>>and use xen_mk_ullong(), allowing its helper macro to be overridden at > >>>>once. > >>>> > >>>>For now don't touch public/io/, which also has a few offenders. > >>>> > >>>>The need to include xen.h in hvm/e820.h demonstrates that it is a bad > >>>>idea to include public headers first thing - arch/x86/hvm/mtrr.c needs > >>>>adjustment just because of this. > >>>> > >>>>Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > >>>>--- > >>>>I wonder why all those ARM constants carry the ULL suffix despite only > >>>>two of them actually exceeding 32 significant bits. > >>> > >>>I am not the author of the code, but I think it was to declare all the > >>>constants of a given set uniformed. > >>> > >>>For instance all the GUEST_* constants are used to define the layout of > >>>the guest. This may be shuffle in this future (this is not part of ABI) > >> > >>Oh, they're in a Xen/tools only section (the #endif could really be > >>annotated to help spot this) - in that case I could as well leave them > >>alone. Any preference? > > > >Correct. I can send a patch to annotate the #endif. > > It looks like that I did not reply to your question. Do we expect the > toolstack to always C99 standard? If not, then we should keep the > xen_mk_ullong. > > I am fine either way. >
We have -std=gnu99 in top-level Config.mk -- both xen and tools will be built with that. Wei. > Cheers, > > -- > Julien Grall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
