> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Cooper > Sent: 30 November 2016 14:02 > To: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com>; Xen-devel <xen- > de...@lists.xen.org> > Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/24] x86/emul: Clean up the naming of the retire > union > > On 30/11/16 13:58, Paul Durrant wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Andrew Cooper [mailto:andrew.coop...@citrix.com] > >> Sent: 30 November 2016 13:50 > >> To: Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org> > >> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Jan Beulich > >> <jbeul...@suse.com>; Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> > >> Subject: [PATCH v3 07/24] x86/emul: Clean up the naming of the retire > union > >> > >> Rename byte to raw, as the field being a single byte long is an > >> implementation > >> detail. Make the bitfields part of an anonymous struct to remove the > .flags > >> qualifier. Change the types of the flags to being booleans, to match their > >> use. > >> > > Is it legitimate to use a bool in a bitfield? > > Yes. Why wouldn't it be? >
They always used to be restricted to int or unsigned int. Looks like this was relaxed in C99. > > Also, anonymous unions are not part of C99 AFAIK... are we now stipulating > something more recent? > > We used gnu99 for as long as I can remember, and we have other examples > of this pattern already in Xen. > If there's precedent then that's fine. Reviewed-by: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> > ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
