lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.1.118 Tons of oopes
> 
> it seems fairly obvious to me why the structure was changed, well in principal
> if not in this case
> the idea that all structures can only be added to at the end is something that
> is a bad rut to get yourself into
> it leads to crappy and bloated coding in the name of "backwards compatability"
> reasonable amounts of backwards compability is good, but one NULL is not going
> to kill anyone.
>

Hmmm I never tried this - but it seems that the way out would be to allow
(in C) a thing like this :

struct test { int left; int right };
struct test var1={left:-1,right:-2};
This would take care of the need to observe order when initializing a
struct.. Even if it's not in gcc one could write a tool that does
preprocessing, automatically putting everything in the correct order..
Or a lint type tool (so that left is #defined to empty, but it checks
that the order is right).

Vladimir Dergachev


>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
>


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.258 / U:0.504 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site