Kurt wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>> On May 20, 2009, at 5:49 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>>
>>>> I did some digging and decided to share what I found, since this only
>>>> occurs on a specific compiler and is thus hard to discover.
>>>>
>>>> Kurt, pay attention, as I just recommended that you do this :-)
>>>>
>>>> Apparently code like this:
>>>>
>>>> (foo_struct){0, 0, NULL}
>>>>
>>>> is a C99 extension, so we probably shouldn't use it. Furthermore it
>>>> makes things fail in g++ 4.2.4 (but not in earlier or later versions I
>>>> tried -- anyway, 4.2.4 is the one currently on sage.math).
>>>
>>> I think it's fine in C (not sure if it's just gcc), but has issues
>>> with C++. We ran into this issue before with cdef optional arguments.
>>
>> The link I posted lists it as a C99 extension though:
>>
>> """
>> As an extension, GCC supports compound literals in C89 mode and in C++.
>> """
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.3.1/gcc/Compound-Literals.html
>
> So was a verdict reached? Can compound literals be used? (They'd be
> a mote easier for the coercion I'm working on in #299, but one can
> always just use an inline function returning a struct.)
Note that if you create a constructor function like this:
static INLINE MyStruct create_MyStruct(int a, int b) {
MyStruct r; r.a = a; r.b = b; return r;
}
then it shouldn't make much difference IMO. (You can create such a
function using utility code.)
(Judging by how my previous attempt to use a feature which was shown to be
C99 only was recieved, I have a feeling this pretty much settles it.)
Dag Sverre
_______________________________________________
Cython-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
