Which is more common in compilers:
static struct foo foobar = {
field1: value1,
field4: value4
};
OR what's shown below:
static struct foo foobar = {
.field1 = value1,
.field4 = value4
};
The first is used by the kernel code, and has been around for quite a
while. I'm not sure what the second form gives us that the first one
doesn't. Unless there is a good reason otherwise we should probably
stick with the most widely supported.
Walt
Murali Vilayannur wrote:
Hi Pete,
Oops that was my bad..I did not realize that this syntax is not supported
by many compilers! I was once bitten by initializing a struct
incorrectly, and I committed that change since I assumed that a user would
not be able to compile the kmod without having a compiler that understands
that syntax.
Thanks,
Murali
On Mon, 29 May 2006, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Mon, 29 May 2006 10:33 -0400:
Pete Wyckoff wrote:
Another possible way to fix this is by using named initializers,
like
static union PINT_state_array_values ST_setup_msgpairs[] = {
{ .state_name = "setup_msgpairs" },
{ .parent_machine = &pvfs2_client_small_io_sm },
{ .flag = SM_NONE },
...
which would be just dandy, but not all compilers have caught up with
this nice C99-ism. I didn't want to exclude old compilers, or
support two versions and add a configure check, so rejected this
idea.
I wondered when this became legal -- I love it! It is already being
used in the distribution code (that is where I learned about it), so I
guess it is okay to begin using everywhere.
Right you are, I had totally forgotten about that usage. Thus it
seems we have implicitly decided that this feature in a compiler is
mandatory. I think that rules out ancient things like gcc 2.95 and
some vendor compilers, but that's fine by me.
This new version has my vote:
struct PINT_state_machine_s pvfs2_client_small_io_sm = {
.name = "pvfs2_client_small_io_sm",
.state_machine = ST_setup_msgpairs
};
static union PINT_state_array_values ST_setup_msgpairs[] = {
{ .state_name = "setup_msgpairs" },
{ .parent_machine = &pvfs2_client_small_io_sm },
{ .flag = SM_NONE },
{ .state_action = small_io_setup_msgpairs },
{ .return_value = 0 },
{ .next_state = ST_xfer_msgpairs },
{ .return_value = -1 },
{ .flag = SM_RETURN }
};
Thanks for pointing this out Brad. I'll commit it in a day or so
unless there are any strong objections. Diff attached.
-- Pete
_______________________________________________
Pvfs2-developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.beowulf-underground.org/mailman/listinfo/pvfs2-developers
--
Dr. Walter B. Ligon III
Associate Professor
ECE Department
Clemson University
_______________________________________________
Pvfs2-developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.beowulf-underground.org/mailman/listinfo/pvfs2-developers
