On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 04:19:02PM -0500, Jonathon Jongsma wrote: > > So, I chatted (very briefly) with Frediano about this on IRC after sending this > email and I thought we should gauge opinions on options here. > > This typedef stuff really does make refactoring more difficult. When we move > stuff around, we have to keep adding temporary typedefs to make things compile. > Or we have to remove these typedefs to avoid redefining the same struct multiple > types. This removal of typedefs is only needed to address el6 build I think? Imo it's fine if RHEL6 is temporarily broken because of that and if we fix it later. > So there are several options: > > 1. Use 'struct Foo' throughout the code instead of 'Foo' so that we don't have > to deal with the typedef mess. I'd hate having a mass rename, and I'd hate things to be inconsistent too :-/ (except if it's only for a few specific types that "struct foo" is used, but it seems it's not the case here) > 2. the approach listed above (a spice-types.h file that simply typedefs all > structs). This is a bit of a maintenance nightmare and needs to be kept up to > date and for a lot of types that are relatively self-contained it's not even > necessary to put them in a global header like this... I'm afraid I don't get how much of a mess it is, but would it be realistic to just add the most problematic typedefs to it? > 3. continue with the fragile approach we now have Sounds like it's not your preferred option ;) > > 4. use C++ :D I agree with Pavel here, I'd try to finish merging the remaining patches first.. Christophe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel