2011/5/6 Eric Blake <eblake@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On 05/06/2011 08:32 AM, Matthias Bolte wrote: >> To be really sure, we might add a whitelist aside the backlist and >> once the generator sees something that's not on one of the lists it >> complains with an error that tells the programmer to either add the >> function to whitelist and check that the generated code does the right >> thing, or add it to the blacklist and add a function body manually. > > I like that idea the most. > >> On the other hand, stuff like flags parameter being unsigned in the >> public API but signed in the XDR protocol need manual special cases in >> the generator. We could add some general sanity checks to avoid >> something like this in the future. The generator could complain when a >> parameter is called flags but is signed. I'll work on that too. > > Also a good idea. > > It's not an API change if we switch existing offenders to unsigned, is > it? ÂEven for C++, where there is function overloading, we are using > 'extern "C"' declarations. > >> >> So, are you just inclined to ACK or do you ACK this? :) >> > > I'm with danpb here - Treat this as an ACK, and push now, to maximize > the testing exposure. ÂDo your proposed cleanups (documentation, sanity > checking, whitelisting) as followups. Okay, I finally manged to push the series. I had to resolve some syntax-check and push hook hassle first. Matthias -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list