Re: [PATCH 02/17] qom: Clean up inconsistent use of gchar * vs. char *

[Markus Armbruster]

Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:

> On 4/28/20 11:34 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Uses of gchar * in qom/object.h:
>>
>
> Nice audit.  I don't know if we can blindly assume that 'gchar' is a
> (stupid) typedef to 'char', or if they can ever differ, but avoiding
> gchar where possible always makes sense to me.

GLib's "basic types" are one of the most misguided aspects of its
interface.

Quote https://developer.gnome.org/glib/stable/glib-Basic-Types.html

    GLib defines a number of commonly used types, which can be divided
    into several groups:

        New types which are not part of standard C (but are defined in
        various C standard library header files) — gboolean, gssize.

Stuck in the 90s.

        Integer types which are guaranteed to be the same size across
        all platforms — gint8, guint8, gint16, guint16, gint32, guint32,
        gint64, guint64.

Again.

        Types which are easier to use than their standard C counterparts
        - gpointer, gconstpointer, guchar, guint, gushort, gulong.

Surely, you're joking Mr. GLib.

        Types which correspond exactly to standard C types, but are
        included for completeness — gchar, gint, gshort, glong, gfloat,
        gdouble.

This answers your question: yes, gchar is exactly char.

It also reminds me of "It has been said that XML is like violence; if a
little doesn't solve the problem, use more."

        Types which correspond exactly to standard C99 types, but are
        available to use even if your compiler does not support C99 —
        gsize, goffset, gintptr, guintptr.

And the 90s again.

Purge with fire.

>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <address@hidden>
>> ---
> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>

Thanks!