At present, type_register() and type_register_static() are identical,
although their documentation expects the *_static variant to accept
the Typeinfo with the strings that have the static lifetime.
However, the code implementation doesn't have any check or guarantee for
static lifetime. In fact, this is unnecessary because type_new()
duplicates all strings, thereby taking ownership of them.
Therefore, type_register() and type_register_static() are redundant, so
one of them should be removed.
Since the changes required to remove type_register() were smaller,
type_register() was replaced with type_register_static() throughout the
code base. Drop its definition, and delete the requirement about string
lifetime from the documentation.
Signed-off-by: Zhao Liu <zhao1.liu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241029085934.2799066-17-zhao1.liu@intel.com
* type_register_static:
* @info: The #TypeInfo of the new type.
*
- * @info and all of the strings it points to should exist for the life time
- * that the type is registered.
- *
* Returns: the new #Type.
*/
Type type_register_static(const TypeInfo *info);
-/**
- * type_register:
- * @info: The #TypeInfo of the new type
- *
- * Unlike type_register_static(), this call does not require @info or its
- * string members to continue to exist after the call returns.
- *
- * Returns: the new #Type.
- */
-Type type_register(const TypeInfo *info);
-
/**
* type_register_static_array:
* @infos: The array of the new type #TypeInfo structures.
return ti;
}
-TypeImpl *type_register(const TypeInfo *info)
+TypeImpl *type_register_static(const TypeInfo *info)
{
assert(info->parent);
return type_register_internal(info);
}
-TypeImpl *type_register_static(const TypeInfo *info)
-{
- return type_register(info);
-}
-
void type_register_static_array(const TypeInfo *infos, int nr_infos)
{
int i;