On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 01:37:25AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:29:10AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:15 AM Dmitry Torokhov > > <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Instead of explicitly setting values of integer types when copying > > > property entries lets just copy entire value union when processing > > > non-array values. > > > > > > When handling array values assign the pointer there using the newly > > > introduced "raw" pointer union member. This allows us to remove > > > property_set_pointer(). > > > > > > In property_get_pointer() we do not need to handle each data type > > > separately, we can simply return either the raw pointer or pointer to > > > values union. > > > > Same as before, typechecking is good thing to have for my point of view. > > Others may have different opinions. > > OK, I'll just point out that typechecking is a red herring here as > everything was and still is accessed through void pointers, and we > trusted the type set on property. Users of static properties should use > PROPERTY_ENTRY_XXX() for initialization and do not poke into struct > property_entry directly. > > I suppose it is up to Rafael to decide here. Yes, and perhaps Mika as they were the main authors of the idea and implementation. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
