David Kågedal wrote:
> Brandon Casey <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> The following syntax:
>>
>> char foo[] = {
>> [0] = 1,
>> [7] = 2,
>> [15] = 3
>> };
>>
>> is a c99 construct which some compilers do not support even though they
>> support other c99 constructs. Use an alternative.
>
> But the alternative is much worse.
_Much_ worse? In what way?
>From an execution standpoint, I don't think any more work is performed.
Probably exactly the same amount of work.
>From a readability standpoint, I think it is very nearly the same in
this case. The whole function is only 17 lines.
> So how important is it to support non-C99 compilers?
I think it is relative to the amount of effort it takes. If there is
a demonstrated need and a trivial work around, I think it is worth
it to support non-c99 compilers. Demonstrated need is required.
But, saying that, I posted the patch you replied to in a series that
was for informational purposes only (though I could have done a better
job labeling them). There were no comments from anyone who said that
the series solved any problems they were encountering. At some point
I will post an update.
-brandon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
