Submitted in r1698107. > Am 26.08.2015 um 23:41 schrieb NormW <[email protected]>: > > Whinnnie! > (eq Equine 'Thanks') > On 27/08/2015 7:31 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: >> I will apply the proposed change tomorrow. keep the old horse happy. >> >> //stefan >> >>> Am 26.08.2015 um 23:18 schrieb NormW <[email protected]>: >>> >>> G/Morning I think, >>> As Bill correctly guesses in a following mail, 'my' OS is NetWare and it's >>> the standard compiler GK has been using for years to build Apache releases. >>> >>> And that (Metrowerks CW) (AFAIK) is a C89 legend. >>> >>> As I noted in my mail, I would hardly expect to hold back tomorrows http/2 >>> protocol for so dated a horse as NetWare, and if you introduced coding or >>> functions that NetWare's compiler doesn't support then it's 'game-over' for >>> the old war horse as far as http2 is concerned. For the moment however I >>> merely suggest an opinion that initializing structures via a list of >>> individual assignments is a better form to read the code than what is used >>> at present, and a small, almost irrelevant side effect of which is that, >>> for now at least, my compiler can keep building http2 for NetWare, with no >>> functional change to the code. >>> Regards, >>> Norm >>> >>>> On 27/08/2015 1:26 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: >>>> Hi Norm, >>>> >>>> I think these type of assignments are part of the C90 standard. I am not >>>> sure we want to support a compiler that cannot cope with that, but I may >>>> be to green to know that. What platform is this on exactly? >>>> >>>> //Stefan >>>> >>>>> Am 26.08.2015 um 00:53 schrieb NormW <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>> G/Morning, >>>>> Herewith an svn diff that implements line-by-line initialization of three >>>>> structures (no idea if there's a technical term for it) in place of the >>>>> list method now used, e.g struct x = { , , , }. >>>>> >>>>> I acknowledge upfront that 'my' somewhat dated compiler cannot handle the >>>>> list method, whereas the method portrayed in the diff is totally >>>>> acceptable to it. >>>>> >>>>> However, I find the 'list' method less easier to 'read' as the struct >>>>> elements are not 'visible', and one has to locate the struct definition >>>>> itself to see what is being set to what. The method as illustrated by the >>>>> patch is clearer (to my mind) and not affected by the order of the >>>>> elements within the primary structure. >>>>> >>>>> Lastly I noticed at least one case recently where my diff 'simplified' >>>>> because a struct was changed to the _suggested_ method, with the primary >>>>> struct being created by a memset(); perhaps that's a similar change >>>>> needed in these cases also? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Norm >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> <cw_reqd_chgs.diff> >>>> >>>> <green/>bytes GmbH >>>> Hafenweg 16, 48155 Münster, Germany >>>> Phone: +49 251 2807760. Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782 >>> >
<green/>bytes GmbH Hafenweg 16, 48155 Münster, Germany Phone: +49 251 2807760. Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782
