[libvirt] [PATCH 01/15] util: Introduce VIR_DEFINE_AUTOPTR_FUNC for virStorageAuthDef

[John Ferlan]

On 2/7/19 11:54 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-02-07 at 17:36 +0100, Erik Skultety wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 05:11:24PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2019-02-07 at 16:55 +0100, Erik Skultety wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 04:24:13PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
>>>>> Please keep the semicolon! If a macro is used like a function, then
>>>>> its call sites should also look like those of a function.
>>>>
>>>> Except VIR_DEFINE_AUTOPTR_FUNC macro is not used like a function, it defines a
>>>> function.
>>>
>>> Sure, and the way you make that happen is by writing
>>>
>>>   MACRO_NAME(argument_one, argument_two);
>>>
>>> How is that not using it like a function? :)
>>
>> I may need to replace my dictionary, because the way I understand the
>> expression "like a function" is that the macro is called like function and it
>> behaves like a function, i.e. returns a value, IOW by using the macro its
>> expansion will perform the usual set of operation on the stack that a function
>> call involves (push parameters, return address, jump into function,
>> pop the return value...)
> 
> I guess abort() is not a function either then, since it doesn't have
> any parameters to push or values to return! :P
> 
> Anyway, the point is that we have already started mandating the use
> of semicolon after other macros that expand to definitions, such as
> VIR_ENUM_DECL(), VIR_ENUM_IMPL(), and VIR_ONCE_GLOBAL_INIT(): we
> should do the same for VIR_DEFINE_AUTOPTR_FUNC() and increase
> consistency instead of pushing in the opposite direction.
> 

Since the issue is consistency, how about a patch that adds the ; to the
existing VIR_DEFINE_AUTOPTR_FUNC's that don't have it?  Ironically, I
found one that has it:

VIR_DEFINE_AUTOPTR_FUNC(virSEVCapability, virSEVCapabilitiesFree);

John