Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965344AbVKGUGE (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2005 15:06:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965330AbVKGUEM (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2005 15:04:12 -0500 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([69.55.234.183]:15789 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965322AbVKGUDs (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2005 15:03:48 -0500 Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 12:02:57 -0800 From: Greg KH To: linas Cc: Paul Mackerras , linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org, johnrose@austin.ibm.com, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, bluesmoke-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: typedefs and structs [was Re: [PATCH 16/42]: PCI: PCI Error reporting callbacks] Message-ID: <20051107200257.GA22524@kroah.com> References: <20051103235918.GA25616@mail.gnucash.org> <20051104005035.GA26929@mail.gnucash.org> <20051105061114.GA27016@kroah.com> <17262.37107.857718.184055@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20051107175541.GB19593@austin.ibm.com> <20051107182727.GD18861@kroah.com> <20051107185621.GD19593@austin.ibm.com> <20051107190245.GA19707@kroah.com> <20051107193600.GE19593@austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051107193600.GE19593@austin.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1788 Lines: 47 On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 01:36:00PM -0600, linas wrote: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 11:02:45AM -0800, Greg KH was heard to remark: > > > > > I'm not to clear on what "sparse" can do; however, in the good old days, > > > gcc allowed you to commit great sins when passing "struct blah *" to > > > subroutines, whereas it stoped you cold if you tried the same trick > > > with a typedef'ed "blah_t *". This got me into the habit of turning > > > all structs into typedefs in my personal projects. Can we expect > > > something similar for the kernel, and in particular, should we start > > > typedefing structs now? > > > > No, never typedef a struct. That's just wrong. > > Its a defacto convention for most C-language apps, see, for > example Xlib, gtk and gnome. The kernel is not those projects. > Also, "grep typedef include/linux/*" shows that many kernel device > drivers use this convention. They are wrong and should be fixed. See my old OLS paper on all about the problems of using typedefs in kernel code. > > gcc should warn you > > just the same if you pass the wrong struct pointer > > There were many cases where it did not warn (I don't remember > the case of subr calls). I beleive this had to do with ANSI-C spec > issues dating to the 1990's; traditional C is weakly typed. > > Its not just gcc; anyoe who coded for a while eventually discovered > that tyedefs where strongly typed, but "struct blah *" were not. Sorry, but you are using a broken compiler if it doesn't complain about this. thanks, greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/