Lowell Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
C-99 requires a fully specified type before the unspecified array (and
requires said array to be the last element in the structure). So this
example is *not* valid in C99, but the following would be:
struct foo {
int bar;
char array[];
};
On Sun, 3 Mar 2002, Erik Trulsson wrote:
ETOn Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 10:27:17AM -0700, Ian wrote:
ET
ET In sys/proc.h:
ET
ET /*
ET * pargs, used to hold a copy of the command line, if it had a sane
ET * length
ET */
ET struct pargs {
ET u_int ar_ref; /* Reference count */
ET
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 10:29:18AM +0100, Harti Brandt wrote:
On Sun, 3 Mar 2002, Erik Trulsson wrote:
ETOn Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 10:27:17AM -0700, Ian wrote:
ET
ET In sys/proc.h:
ET
ET /*
ET * pargs, used to hold a copy of the command line, if it had a sane
ET * length
ET */
ET
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: I think it is still there (and my draft copy says the same thing).
: I was thinking about the original C89 standard which does not allow it
: (and does not allow incomplete array types in structs). Guess I
On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, M. Warner Losh wrote:
MWLIn message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MWLErik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MWL: I think it is still there (and my draft copy says the same thing).
MWL: I was thinking about the original C89 standard which does not allow it
MWL: (and does not
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 09:35:29AM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: I think it is still there (and my draft copy says the same thing).
: I was thinking about the original C89 standard which does not allow it
:
Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 09:35:29AM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: I think it is still there (and my draft copy says the same thing).
: I was thinking about the
Harti Brandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This should be
struct foo {
char array[];
};
according to C-99, on which gcc2 barfs. Don't know, whether gcc3 can
handle this.
C-99 requires a fully specified type before the unspecified array (and
requires said array to be the last element
Am I just completely stupid, or do we have a few things that could use a
little cleaning up in /usr/include as well as in the man page for kvm_*?
System: FreeBSD 4.5-STABLE
1) The man page for the kvm_* functions lists the following #include
dependencies:
#include kvm.h
#include
In sys/proc.h:
/*
* pargs, used to hold a copy of the command line, if it had a sane
* length
*/
struct pargs {
u_int ar_ref; /* Reference count */
u_int ar_length; /* Length */
u_char ar_args[0]; /* Arguments */
};
This does indeed seem to make little or
On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 10:27:17AM -0700, Ian wrote:
In sys/proc.h:
/*
* pargs, used to hold a copy of the command line, if it had a sane
* length
*/
struct pargs {
u_int ar_ref; /* Reference count */
u_int ar_length; /* Length */
u_char ar_args[0];
On Sunday 03 March 2002 10:19 am, Conrad Sabatier wrote:
Am I just completely stupid, or do we have a few things that could use a
little cleaning up in /usr/include as well as in the man page for kvm_*?
System: FreeBSD 4.5-STABLE
2) If compiling with the -pedantic switch, one might see
On Sunday 03 March 2002 01:00 pm, Erik Trulsson wrote:
On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 10:27:17AM -0700, Ian wrote:
In sys/proc.h:
/*
* pargs, used to hold a copy of the command line, if it had a sane
* length
*/
struct pargs {
u_int ar_ref; /* Reference count */
Brian T.Schellenberger wrote:
I can't even imagine how one *would* write a compiler where this would
fail--does anybody know the putative risk that led ANSI to ban this (IMHO)
perfectly-reasonable bahvior?
Order of structure elements is undefined. Zero length arrays
are undefined. Also,
Terry Lambert wrote:
| Order of structure elements is undefined. Zero length arrays
| are undefined. Also, packing is undefined.
Close, but no cigar. The /order/ is defined in C89 (Section
6.5.2.1) with the following words:
Within a structure object, the non-bit-field members and the
Thanks for all the very interesting followups, folks. I learned something
today!
I really must start reading this list more often. :-)
--
Conrad Sabatier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bennett's Laws of Horticulture:
(1) Houses are for people to live in.
(2) Gardens are for plants to
16 matches
Mail list logo
