Re: [PATCH 83/84] exec/poison: Do not poison CONFIG_SOFTMMU

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 5/8/23 16:27, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 03/05/2023 09.23, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > If CONFIG_USER_ONLY is ok generically, so is CONFIG_SOFTMMU,
> > because they are exactly opposite.
>
> I thought there was a difference ... at least in the past?
> But looking at meson.build they seem to be handled quite equally now:
>
> common_ss.add_all(when: 'CONFIG_SOFTMMU', if_true: [softmmu_ss])
> common_ss.add_all(when: 'CONFIG_USER_ONLY', if_true: user_ss)
>
> Paolo, do you remember whether there was a difference in the past?

No, I don't think so.  Really _none_ of them are okay in general, but 
now that we have softmmu_ss/user_ss there is a usecase for using them in 
"generic" sourcesets.  So perhaps we could have something like

/* One of these is always defined in files that can use them.  */
#if !defined CONFIG_SOFTMMU && !defined CONFIG_USER_ONLY
#pragma GCC poison CONFIG_SOFTMMU
#pragma GCC poison CONFIG_USER_ONLY
#endif

Paolo