On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 04:54:52PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 02:38:17PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
(edited:)
> > +typedef struct {
> > + unsigned long addr;
> > +} func_desc_t;
> >
> > static func_desc_t func_desc(unsigned long addr)
> > {
> > + return (func_desc_t){addr};
> There's only 1 element in the struct, so okay, but it hurt my eyes a
> little. I would have been happier with:
>
> return (func_desc_t){ .addr = addr; };
>
> But of course that also looks bonkers because it starts with "return".
> So no matter what I do my eyes bug out. ;)
The usual way to avoid convoluted constructs is to name more factors.
So:
static func_desc_t func_desc(unsigned long addr)
{
func_desc_t desc = {};
desc.addr = addr;
return desc;
}
Segher
