On 7/2/05, Charles Forsyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>it cant be worked around without breaking the cross
> >>platform features of their headers.
>
> sounds brilliantly portable to me.
> what do they do? insert 0-length padding areas
> to make these structures `portable'?
>
>
Yeah, it's undefined what happens if a struct is empty in C99. Seems a
really silly thing for someone to rely on. What are they trying to
accomplish? The only thing I can think of is some kind of type safety
based on a tag generated for a unique "struct". They should probably
make it wrap a void * or something.
