On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 07:05:46PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting Lucas De Marchi (2018-08-28 18:41:46) > > Document it like a real struct for ease of copy and paste, remove > > comment of C99 compatibility and document that in some cases the first 2 > > I do recall that we couldn't use either C99 or class due to userspace you can't actually use a c++ compiler. For C it works with any of -std=c99, gnu99, c11, gnu11, c17, gnu17. Tested with both gcc and clang. I've never heard of class being a reserved keyword and section 6.4.5 of said standard doesn't list it neither. Here the struct definition is in a *comment*... i.e. the user will copy and paste somewhere else and probably change __u16 to uint16_t in userspace. If he's building with g++, he can name the field to something else. If it was something we were defining in this header than I would agree with you... to retain compatibility with c++, not c99. Lucas De Marchi > compatibility... The essence is that we need a reminder that we can't > assume the relaxed nature of kcc here. > -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
