[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Dynamic loading progress

From: Philipp Stephani
Subject: Re: Dynamic loading progress
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:27:28 +0000

Daniel Colascione <address@hidden> schrieb am So., 13. Sep. 2015 um 16:15 Uhr:
On 09/13/2015 06:04 AM, Philipp Stephani wrote:
> Daniel Colascione <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>> schrieb
> am So., 15. Feb. 2015 um 21:21 Uhr:
>       typedef struct emacs_value_tag* emacs_value;
> Would it make sense to not use a typedef here? Using a typedef means
> that the type including its size is opaque and subject to change, which
> can break ABI compatibility. I'd rather have something like:
> struct emacs_value {
>   // contains private fields
> };
> and then pass /struct emacs_value*/ around.

You may have missed the "*" in the typedef. The difference is stylistic.
There's no difference between foo and bar here.

typedef struct valuex* value;
void foo(struct valuex* x);
void bar(value y);

I find the typedef much more readable, however.

There's no difference in your design, but using a typedef makes it possible to use a non-pointer type without changing the API in obvious ways. 
E.g. Linus is strongly against such typedefs: http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0206.1/0402.html

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]