On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, David Leimbach wrote:
> 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.
>
IIRC this is one of those deals where people do something liiek:
struct element {
int x,y;
};
struct a {
int numelements;
struct elements blah[0];
};
is that it Tim? I might be wrong on this.
It's not reliable in gcc, as we found out the hard way on the linuxbios
project ...
ron
