Am 23.07.2013 um 23:16 schrieb Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On 23 July 2013 20:15, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 23 July 2013 03:43, Andreas Färber <afaerber@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> v2 improves internal vs. "public" header separation for GIC.
>>> As before, no feedback was received to address PMM's QOM concerns,
>>> so this is what we have as design patterns for the moment.
>>
>> I had a thought about this. Suppose we have our class header
>> files do something like this:
>>
>> #ifdef MYCLASS_IMPLEMENTATION
>> #define PRIVATE
>> #else
>> #ifdef __GNUC__
>> #define PRIVATE __attribute__((deprecated("this is a private field")))
>> #else
>> #define PRIVATE
>> #endif
>>
>> typedef struct MyObject {
>> int publicfield;
>> int privatefield PRIVATE;
>> } MyObject;
>
> Forgot to say, but if people don't think this is an
> intrinsically terrible idea I'll put together a patch that
> does this sometime this week.
I like the idea, but could we make this slightly less upper case? Something like
__private int privatefield;
feels more readable imho. Or maybe
struct MyObject {
PUBLIC_FIELDS
__field int publicfield;
PRIVATE_FIELDS
__field int privatefield;
}
We already have comments indicating the sections, so replacing them by valid macros feels sensible.
Alex
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
