[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH] qemu/atomic.h: prefix qemu_ to solve <stdatomic.h> collision

From: Stefan Hajnoczi
Subject: Re: [PATCH] qemu/atomic.h: prefix qemu_ to solve <stdatomic.h> collisions
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 10:14:07 +0100

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 09:18:49AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 08:56:06AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 22/09/20 08:45, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > >> It's certainly a good idea but it's quite verbose.
> > >>
> > >> What about using atomic__* as the prefix?  It is not very common in QEMU
> > >> but there are some cases (and I cannot think of anything better).
> > >
> > > aqomic_*, lol :)
> > 
> > Actually qatomic_ would be a good one, wouldn't it?
> Yes, I think just adding a 'q' on the front of methods is more than
> sufficient (see also all the qcrypto_*, qio_* APIs I wrote). The
> only think a plain 'q' prefix is likely to clash with is the Qt
> library and that isn't something we're likely to link with (famous
> last words...).

This is why I didn't use "qatomic". "atomic" feels too common to prefix
with just a single letter.

But I grepped /usr/include and code searched GitHub. I can't find any
uses of "qatomic_" so it looks safe. FWIW Qt does have qatomic.h but
doesn't use the name for identifiers in the code.

Let's do it!


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

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