| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Rather than open-code the check for a valid base type, we
should reuse the common functionality. This allows for
consistent error messages, and also makes it easier for a
later patch to turn on support for inline anonymous base
structures.
Test flat-union-inline is updated to test only one feature
(anonymous branch dictionaries), which can be implemented
independently (test flat-union-bad-base already covers the
idea of an anonymous base dictionary).
Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <1443565276-4535-10-git-send-email-eblake@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Referring to "type" as both a meta-type (built-in, enum, union,
alternate, or struct) and a specific type (the name that the
schema uses for declaring structs) is confusing. Do the bulk of
the conversion to "struct" in qapi schema, with a fairly
mechanical:
for f in `find -name '*.json'; do sed -i "s/'type'/'struct'/"; done
followed by manually filtering out the places where we have a
'type' embedded in 'data'. Then tweak a couple of tests whose
output changes slightly due to longer lines.
I also verified that the generated files for QMP and QGA (such
as qmp-commands.h) are the same before and after, as assurance
that I didn't leave in any accidental member name changes.
Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Referring to "type" as both a meta-type (built-in, enum, union,
alternate, or struct) and a specific type (the name that the
schema uses for declaring structs) is confusing. The confusion
is only made worse by the fact that the generator mostly already
refers to struct even when dealing with expr['type']. This
commit changes the generator to consistently refer to it as
struct everywhere, plus a single back-compat tweak that allows
accepting the existing .json files as-is, so that the meat of
this change is separate from the mindless churn of that change.
Fix the testsuite fallout for error messages that change, and
in some cases, become more legible. Improve comments to better
match our intentions where a struct (rather than any complex
type) is required. Note that in some cases, an error message
now refers to 'struct' while the schema still refers to 'type';
that will be cleaned up in the later commit to the schema.
Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previous commits demonstrated that the generator had several
flaws with less-than-perfect unions:
- a simple union that listed the same branch twice (or two variant
names that map to the same C enumerator, including the implicit
MAX sentinel) ended up generating invalid C code
- an anonymous union that listed two branches with the same qtype
ended up generating invalid C code
- the generator crashed on anonymous union attempts to use an
array type
- the generator was silently ignoring a base type for anonymous
unions
- the generator allowed unknown types or nested anonymous unions
as a branch in an anonymous union
Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
|
|
|
Demonstrate that the qapi generator doesn't deal well with unions
that aren't up to par. Later patches will update the expected
reseults as the generator is made stricter. A few tests work
as planned, but most show poor or missing error messages.
Of particular note, qapi-code-gen.txt documents 'base' only for
flat unions, but the tests here demonstrate that we currently allow
a 'base' to a simple union, although it is exercised only in the
testsuite. Later patches will remove this undocumented feature, to
give us more flexibility in adding other future extensions to union
types. For example, one possible extension is the idea of a
type-safe simple enum, where added fields tie the discriminator to
a user-defined enum type rather than creating an implicit enum from
the names in 'data'. But adding such safety on top of a simple
enum with a base type could look ambiguous with a flat enum;
besides, the documentation also mentions how any simple union can
be represented by an equivalent flat union. So it will be simpler
to just outlaw support for something we aren't using.
Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
|
