| Message ID | 20230712205748.446931-6-dbarboza@ventanamicro.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | target/riscv: add 'max' CPU type | expand |
On 7/12/23 21:57, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: > +#define ADD_CPU_PROPERTIES_ARRAY(_dev, _array) \ > + for (prop = _array; prop && prop->name; prop++) { \ > + qdev_property_add_static(_dev, prop); \ > + } \ do { } while(0) Watch the \ on the last line of the macro. Declare the iterator within the macro, rather than use one defined in the outer scope. Why not use ARRAY_SIZE? r~
On 7/13/23 17:40, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 7/12/23 21:57, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: >> +#define ADD_CPU_PROPERTIES_ARRAY(_dev, _array) \ >> + for (prop = _array; prop && prop->name; prop++) { \ >> + qdev_property_add_static(_dev, prop); \ >> + } \ > > do { } while(0) > > Watch the \ on the last line of the macro. > Declare the iterator within the macro, rather than use one defined in the outer scope. Like this? #define ADD_CPU_PROPERTIES_ARRAY(_dev, _array) \ do { \ Property *prop; \ for (prop = _array; prop && prop->name; prop++) { \ qdev_property_add_static(_dev, prop); \ } \ } while(0) > Why not use ARRAY_SIZE? Hm, the arrays are finishing with DEFINE_PROP_END_OF_LIST() (I copied the existing array structure), which adds an empty element, so ARRAY_SIZE will get empty stuff in the end. Since these are new arrays I can get rid of the end_of_list blank element and use ARRAY_SIZE(). Daniel > > > r~
On 7/13/23 22:27, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: > > > On 7/13/23 17:40, Richard Henderson wrote: >> On 7/12/23 21:57, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: >>> +#define ADD_CPU_PROPERTIES_ARRAY(_dev, _array) \ >>> + for (prop = _array; prop && prop->name; prop++) { \ >>> + qdev_property_add_static(_dev, prop); \ >>> + } \ >> >> do { } while(0) >> >> Watch the \ on the last line of the macro. >> Declare the iterator within the macro, rather than use one defined in the outer scope. > > Like this? > > #define ADD_CPU_PROPERTIES_ARRAY(_dev, _array) \ > do { \ > Property *prop; \ > for (prop = _array; prop && prop->name; prop++) { \ > qdev_property_add_static(_dev, prop); \ > } \ > } while(0) Yes, like that, thanks. r~
diff --git a/target/riscv/cpu.c b/target/riscv/cpu.c index c0826b449d..b61465c8c4 100644 --- a/target/riscv/cpu.c +++ b/target/riscv/cpu.c @@ -1881,6 +1881,11 @@ static void cpu_set_cfg_unavailable(Object *obj, Visitor *v, } #endif +#define ADD_CPU_PROPERTIES_ARRAY(_dev, _array) \ + for (prop = _array; prop && prop->name; prop++) { \ + qdev_property_add_static(_dev, prop); \ + } \ + /* * Add CPU properties with user-facing flags. * @@ -1924,17 +1929,9 @@ static void riscv_cpu_add_user_properties(Object *obj) qdev_property_add_static(dev, prop); } - for (prop = riscv_cpu_options; prop && prop->name; prop++) { - qdev_property_add_static(dev, prop); - } - - for (prop = riscv_cpu_vendor_exts; prop && prop->name; prop++) { - qdev_property_add_static(dev, prop); - } - - for (prop = riscv_cpu_experimental_exts; prop && prop->name; prop++) { - qdev_property_add_static(dev, prop); - } + ADD_CPU_PROPERTIES_ARRAY(dev, riscv_cpu_options); + ADD_CPU_PROPERTIES_ARRAY(dev, riscv_cpu_vendor_exts); + ADD_CPU_PROPERTIES_ARRAY(dev, riscv_cpu_experimental_exts); } static Property riscv_cpu_properties[] = {
The code inside riscv_cpu_add_user_properties() became quite repetitive after recent changes. Add a macro to hide the repetition away. Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <dbarboza@ventanamicro.com> --- target/riscv/cpu.c | 19 ++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)