James Manning <jmm@raleigh.ibm.com> writes:
> FWIW, I chose the gcc syntax since it was already very prevelant
> in the kernel... my patch simply finishes conversion for file_ops :)
>
> 1) I'd hate adding a #define to each file or create another .h dep
> 2) it's a simple perl script to make this change later on if it
> proves to be desirable.
Fair enough. Given the similarity between the gcc initializer syntax
and the C labelled statement syntax, I don't think the Perl script
would look simple if I had to write it. But many people are better
Perl coders than I.
> As it stands, gcc 2.7.2.3 is still our baseline compiler so I'd rather
> keep things compatible with that my design, not by #ifdef.
I agree that the macro approach is ugly, it just seems wiser to think
these things through before we have lots of designated initializers in
the kernel, rather than after, and it wasn't clear from your messages
that you had considered this issue.
> While I
> personally like the C99 syntax better, I think it's important to at
> least get named initilizers in place first, and we can either change
> or abstract out the interface later on. First thing's first :)
Yup, generally I'm in favour of the patch.
David Wragg
-
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.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 21:00:26 EST