Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] x86/string: Clean up x86/string.h

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

 >>> On 15.05.17 at 12:08, <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 12.05.17 at 19:35, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/string.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/string.h
>> @@ -2,13 +2,23 @@
>>  #define __X86_STRING_H__
>>  
>>  #define __HAVE_ARCH_MEMCPY
>> -#define memcpy(t,f,n) (__builtin_memcpy((t),(f),(n)))
>> +void *memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t n);
>> +#define memcpy(d, s, n) __builtin_memcpy(d, s, n)
>>  
>> -/* Some versions of gcc don't have this builtin. It's non-critical anyway. 
> */
>>  #define __HAVE_ARCH_MEMMOVE
>> -extern void *memmove(void *dest, const void *src, size_t n);
>> +void *memmove(void *dest, const void *src, size_t n);
>> +#define memmove(d, s, n) __builtin_memmove(d, s, n)
>>  
>>  #define __HAVE_ARCH_MEMSET
>> -#define memset(s,c,n) (__builtin_memset((s),(c),(n)))
>> +void *memset(void *dest, int c, size_t n);
>> +#define memset(s, c, n) __builtin_memset(s, c, n)
> 
> Now that xen/string.h has the exact same declarations and
> definitions already, why don't you simply delete the overrides
> from here?

Hmm, wait - I guess you need to keep them because of the custom
implementation. That's awkward, there shouldn't be a need to have
redundant declarations just because there are custom
implementations. How about making __HAVE_ARCH_* serve both
purposes, by allowing it to have different values (besides being
defined or undefined)?

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel