On 07/04/2016 16:49, Peter Maydell wrote: > > QOM to C++ classes > I suspect if you looked at this you'd find that the QOM semantics > for various things don't map onto C++ (ie that we have more runtime > flexibility than C++ does).
True, but you don't have to use it. :) If your code is static, one could imagine bindings to C++ that eliminate some of the boilerplate. Don't look at me, though. On the other hand, minimal usage of templates instead of some of the preprocessor gunk we have would be a very good thing IMNSHO. I am referring to the multiply included header files and to the macros with type arguments (mostly QOM casts). I don't think we need more C++ than that, but using templates as basically a type-safe preprocessor would improve QEMU a little bit. More rarely, lambdas could replace some preprocessor magic too, but that's C11 and not many compilers support them. But I won't weep if people say no because we have a lot other low-hanging fruit to make QEMU better (especially the header file cleanups that Markus started and I want to conclude very early in 2.7). Paolo > This is just vaguely remembered from > discussions back when we first added QOM though, I have no specific > detail and might have misremembered.
