On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Arun Raghavan <arun at accosted.net> wrote:
> On 25 September 2015 at 15:21, Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk at iki.fi> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 23:21 +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
>>> OK, after a second look, it seems that the anonymous structure indeed
>>> does not provide any extra benefit. So I believe everyone now agrees
>>> now that the following definitions are the most appropriate:
>>>
>>> typedef struct {
>>> pa_mem mem; /* Parent; must be first */
>>> int fd;
>>> } pa_memfd;
>>>
>>> typedef struct {
>>> pa_mem mem; /* Parent; must be first */
>>> int id;
>>> bool do_unlink;
>>> } pa_shm;
>>>
>>> Good :-)
>>>
>>> But I can't get my head around not using the anonymous unions, and
>>> basically whether they provide any perceived disadvantage:
>>
>> I don't think Arun objected to the use of anonymous unions. I certainly
>> don't see anything wrong with using anonymous unions in pa_mempool.
>
> Yup, and I can see why I might have come off that way. I think this
> pattern is fine.
>
Great, thanks a lot everyone.
--
Darwish
http://darwish.chasingpointers.com
