> Karn Kallio wrote: > > Well, looking at the code I thought that it should output both, > > because gcc > > is supposed to support non-constant initializers. But I am not really > > any help, because I do not know enough about gcc to say. One thing that > > I do notice in your example is that the printf should be leaving an > > integer in the __uwf_1 position of tmp but how could there be space for > > it (as uw_unit should occupy 0 size) ... > > I think this is a confusion between the comma separator between > initializer elements and the comma operator in expressions. I think my > use of parentheses triggers interpretation as the latter, not the former. >
You are right of course ... I did think it was two initializer elements, but now I see that your example initializes the first leaving the second to default ... _______________________________________________ Ur mailing list [email protected] http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur
