On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 11:00 AM Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I tried that initially, but I found that I had to make all of the
> members const to get it to work, at which point the anonymous struct
> wasn't really adding anything. Did I just botch the syntax?
I'm not sure what you tried. But this stupid test-case sure works for me:
struct hello {
const struct {
unsigned long address;
};
unsigned int flags;
};
extern int fn(struct hello *);
int test(void)
{
struct hello a = {
.address = 1,
};
a.flags = 0;
return fn(&a);
}
and because "address" is in that unnamed constant struct, you can only
set it within that initializer, and cannot do
a.address = 0;
without an error (the way you _can_ do "a.flags = 0").
I don't see naming the struct making a difference - apart from forcing
that big rename patch, of course.
But maybe we're talking about different issues?
Linus
