qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [PATCH v5 1/9] docs: update the documentation about schema configura


From: Marc-André Lureau
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/9] docs: update the documentation about schema configuration
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 14:32:18 +0400

Hi

On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 3:53 PM Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
marcandre.lureau@redhat.com writes:

> From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
>
> Update the documentation describing the changes in this series.

Suggest to add "upfront" for clarity.

done


>
> Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
> Tested-by: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
> ---
>  docs/devel/qapi-code-gen.txt | 30 ++++++++++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/docs/devel/qapi-code-gen.txt b/docs/devel/qapi-code-gen.txt
> index c1cb6f987d..0162b73119 100644
> --- a/docs/devel/qapi-code-gen.txt
> +++ b/docs/devel/qapi-code-gen.txt
> @@ -781,25 +781,31 @@ downstream command __com.redhat_drive-mirror.

>  Syntax:
>      COND = STRING
> -         | [ STRING, ... ]
> +         | { 'all: [ COND, ... ] }
> +         | { 'any: [ COND, ... ] }
> +         | { 'not': COND }

>  All definitions take an optional 'if' member.  Its value must be a
> -string or a list of strings.  A string is shorthand for a list
> -containing just that string.  The code generated for the definition
> -will then be guarded by #if STRING for each STRING in the COND list.
> +string, or an object with a single member 'all', 'any' or 'not'.
> +
> +The C code generated for the definition will then be guarded by an #if
> +preprocessing directive generated from that condition:
> +
> +   * STRING will generate #if defined(STRING)
> +   * { 'all': [COND, ...] } will generate #if (COND && ...)
> +   * { 'any': [COND, ...] } will generate #if (COND || ...)
> +   * { 'not': COND } will generate #if !COND

I know this is exactly what I suggested.  It gets the point across, but
it's not quite accurate: the #if of course only at the root of the tree,
not at every level.  Better, I think:

   The C code generated for the definition will then be guarded by an #if
   preprocessing directive with an operand generated from that condition:

      * STRING will generate defined(STRING)
      * { 'all': [COND, ...] } will generate (COND && ...)
      * { 'any': [COND, ...] } will generate (COND || ...)
      * { 'not': COND } will generate !COND


ok
 

>  Example: a conditional struct

>   { 'struct': 'IfStruct', 'data': { 'foo': 'int' },
> -   'if': ['defined(CONFIG_FOO)', 'defined(HAVE_BAR)'] }
> +   'if': { 'all': [ 'CONFIG_FOO', 'HAVE_BAR' ] } }

>  gets its generated code guarded like this:

> - #if defined(CONFIG_FOO)
> - #if defined(HAVE_BAR)
> + #if defined(CONFIG_FOO) && defined(HAVE_BAR)
>   ... generated code ...
> - #endif /* defined(HAVE_BAR) */
> - #endif /* defined(CONFIG_FOO) */
> + #endif /* defined(HAVE_BAR) && defined(CONFIG_FOO) */

>  Individual members of complex types, commands arguments, and
>  event-specific data can also be made conditional.  This requires the
> @@ -810,7 +816,7 @@ member 'bar'

>  { 'struct': 'IfStruct', 'data':
>    { 'foo': 'int',
> -    'bar': { 'type': 'int', 'if': 'defined(IFCOND)'} } }
> +    'bar': { 'type': 'int', 'if': 'IFCOND'} } }

>  A union's discriminator may not be conditional.

> @@ -822,7 +828,7 @@ value 'bar'

>  { 'enum': 'IfEnum', 'data':
>    [ 'foo',
> -    { 'name' : 'bar', 'if': 'defined(IFCOND)' } ] }
> +    { 'name' : 'bar', 'if': 'IFCOND' } ] }

>  Likewise, features can be conditional.  This requires the longhand
>  form of FEATURE.
> @@ -832,7 +838,7 @@ Example: a struct with conditional feature 'allow-negative-numbers'
>  { 'struct': 'TestType',
>    'data': { 'number': 'int' },
>    'features': [ { 'name': 'allow-negative-numbers',
> -                  'if': 'defined(IFCOND)' } ] }
> +                  'if': 'IFCOND' } ] }

>  Please note that you are responsible to ensure that the C code will
>  compile with an arbitrary combination of conditions, since the




--
Marc-André Lureau

reply via email to

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