Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] CodingGuidelines: recommend against unportable C99 struct syntax

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 01:38:00PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
>> index 9598b45f7e..cbe0377699 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
>> +++ b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
>> @@ -242,6 +242,10 @@ For C programs:
>>       printf("%"PRIuMAX, (uintmax_t)v).  These days the MSVC version we
>>       rely on supports %z, but the C library used by MinGW does not.
>>  
>> +   . Shorthand like ".a.b = *c" in struct assignments is known to trip
>> +     up an older IBM XLC version, use ".a = { .b = *c }" instead. See
>> +     the 33665d98e6b portability fix from mid-2022.
>
> FWIW, the use of the word "assignment" here left me scratching my head.
> Reading 33665d98e6b, it is about struct initialization.

Thanks, I missed that confusion in the new description.  Perhaps
another round of reroll would make the series polished enough?



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux