On 2023-07-14 00:22, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 19:50:19 -0700 From: Jason Thorpe <thorpej%me.com@localhost>On Jul 11, 2023, at 2:56 PM, Taylor R Campbell <campbell+netbsd-tech-kern%mumble.net@localhost> wrote: I agree the keyword is ugly, and it's unfortunate that in order to omit it we would have to use C++, but the ugliness gives us practical benefits of better type-checking, reduced header file maintenance burden, and reduced motivation for unnecessary header file dependencies.No -- you just don't have to use "void *". Can you point to a practical problematic example?Using `struct bus_dma_tag *' instead of `void *' (whether via the bus_dma_tag_t alias or not) would provide better type-checking.
Using "typedef struct bus_dma_tag *" instead of "typedef void *" will do the same thing. That is no reason at all why to skip the typedef.
And I totally agree that void * is usually something to be avoided, if possible. But I still fail to see what it has to do with the topic on typedef or not.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt%softjar.se@localhost || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol