On 05/28/13 19:43, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 28/05/2013 19:32, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + switch (addr) {
>>>>>> + case offsetof(struct virtio_pci_common_cfg, device_feature_select):
>>>>>> + return proxy->device_feature_select;
>>>>
>>>> Oh dear no... Please use defines like the rest of QEMU.
>> Any good reason not to use offsetof?
>
> I'm not sure it's portable to use it in case labels. IIRC, the
> definition ((int)&(((T *)0)->field)) is not a valid C integer constant
> expression. Laszlo?
As long as we use the offsetof() that comes with the C implementation
(ie. we don't hack it up ourselves), we should be safe; ISO C99
elegantly defines offsetof() in "7.17 Common definitions <stddef.h>" p3
as
The macros are [...]
offsetof(type, member-designator)
which expands to an integer constant expression that has type
*size_t*, the value of which is the offset in bytes, to the structure
member (designated by /member-designator/), from the beginning of its
structure (designated by /type/). The type and member designator shall
be such that given
static type t;
then the expression &(t.member-designator) evaluates to an address
constant. (If the specified member is a bit-field, the behavior is
undefined.)
("Address constant" is described in 6.6p9 but quoting even that here
doesn't seem necesary.)
>From 6.8.4.2p3, "The expression of each case label shall be an integer
constant expression [...]".
So,
(a) if we use the standard offsetof(),
(b) and you can also write, for example,
static struct virtio_pci_common_cfg t;
static void *p = &t.device_feature_select;
then the construct seems valid.
(Consistently with the above mention of UB if the specified member is a
bit-field: the address-of operator's constraints also forbid a bit-field
object as operand.)
Laszlo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
