>>> On 18.11.14 at 17:19, wrote:
> On 11/18/2014 04:15 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 18.11.14 at 16:00, wrote:
>>> On 10/31/2014 09:02 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 30.10.14 at 19:51, wrote:
The naming suggests that the #if really should be around just the
gic_version field (with
On 11/18/2014 04:15 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 18.11.14 at 16:00, wrote:
>> On 10/31/2014 09:02 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 30.10.14 at 19:51, wrote:
>>> The naming suggests that the #if really should be around just the
>>> gic_version field (with a dummy field in the #else case to be C8
>>> On 18.11.14 at 16:00, wrote:
> On 10/31/2014 09:02 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 30.10.14 at 19:51, wrote:
>> The naming suggests that the #if really should be around just the
>> gic_version field (with a dummy field in the #else case to be C89
>> compatible, e.g. a zero width unnamed bitfi
Julien Grall writes ("Re: [PATCH for Xen 4.5] xen/arm: Add support for GICv3
for domU"):
> On 11/18/2014 03:10 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Empty structs are a gcc extension (`(gcc-4.4) Empty Structures'). I
> > would be very surprised if clang didn't support them too.
>
> AFAIK, clang doesn't com
On 11/18/2014 03:10 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Julien Grall writes ("Re: [PATCH for Xen 4.5] xen/arm: Add support for GICv3
> for domU"):
>> I need to create an empty structure. Is the dummy field really needed?
>
> Empty structs are a gcc extension (`(gcc-4.4) Empty Structures'). I
> would be ver
Julien Grall writes ("Re: [PATCH for Xen 4.5] xen/arm: Add support for GICv3
for domU"):
> I need to create an empty structure. Is the dummy field really needed?
Empty structs are a gcc extension (`(gcc-4.4) Empty Structures'). I
would be very surprised if clang didn't support them too.
AIUI ou
Hi Jan,
On 10/31/2014 09:02 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 30.10.14 at 19:51, wrote:
> The naming suggests that the #if really should be around just the
> gic_version field (with a dummy field in the #else case to be C89
> compatible, e.g. a zero width unnamed bitfield) and the
> corresponding #d
