On 1/17/19 8:01 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 2019-01-16 14:29, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
>> On 1/16/19 12:47 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> On 2019-01-16 12:43, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
>>>> On 1/11/19 9:17 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>>> When compiling the ppc code with clang and -std=gnu99, there are a
>>>>> couple of warnings/errors like this one:
>>>>>
>>>>> CC ppc64-softmmu/hw/intc/xics.o
>>>>> In file included from hw/intc/xics.c:35:
>>>>> include/hw/ppc/xics.h:43:25: error: redefinition of typedef 'ICPState' is
>>>>> a C11 feature
>>>>> [-Werror,-Wtypedef-redefinition]
>>>>> typedef struct ICPState ICPState;
>>>>> ^
>>>>> target/ppc/cpu.h:1181:25: note: previous definition is here
>>>>> typedef struct ICPState ICPState;
>>>>> ^
>>>>> Work around the problems by including the proper headers instead.
>>>>
>>>> Thomas,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After a closer look, I think we should use 'void *' under PowerPCCPU
>>>> as it was the case before I introduced the second interrupt presenter.
>>>
>>> If you don't like the #includes, why not simply do anonymous struct
>>> forward declarations here? I think that would be better than "void *".
>>
>> yes.
>>
>>>> That's a bigger change reverting bits of already merged patches. I can
>>>> take care of it if you prefer.
>>>
>>> Could I keep the current patch in my series so that I can get the
>>> patches finally merged? You could then do any clean up that you like on
>>> top of it, ok?
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> See below the patch I would propose. Compiled tested with clang -std=gnu99.
> [...]
>> @@ -1204,8 +1199,8 @@ struct PowerPCCPU {
>> int32_t node_id; /* NUMA node this CPU belongs to */
>> PPCHash64Options *hash64_opts;
>> #ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY
>> - ICPState *icp;
>> - XiveTCTX *tctx;
>> + struct ICPState *icp;
>> + struct XiveTCTX *tctx;
>> #endif
>
> That's pretty much what I had in an earlier version of my patch:
>
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-01/msg01810.html
>
> But Greg did not like it:
>
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-01/msg01893.html
yeah :/ Sorry for all the fuss. We have been tackling this problem for
years now.
I think the patchset I just sent is good step forward and I checked
compilation with clang -std=gn99 !
Thanks,
C.
