Re: 2.1.118 Tons of oopes

Vladimir Dergachev (vladimid@red.seas.upenn.edu)
Sun, 30 Aug 1998 18:22:27 -0400 (EDT)

>
> 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