Simon Josefsson wrote: > > you don't need it, > > because the rules for struct layout in C guarantee that a structure field > > is aligned to a multiple of the alignment of the previous field. > > Are you saying that even if we don't change the type of buffer to > char, we don't need that alignment? I would agree, but I'm not > certain.
If the previous struct element is a 'uint32_t' then a struct element of type char or char[] has the same alignment. You can rely on it, but it deserves a comment because it would break if someone inserts, say, a 'short' field in between. > > 17) gc.m4 > > > > I don't understand what happens when someone specifies > > --disable-random-device. Then NAME_OF_RANDOM_DEVICE will be set to "no", > > the AC_CHECK_FILE will check for a file named "no" and bail out. > > Hm. How can this be solved? Is AC_ARG_ENABLE the proper method to > set non-boolean parameters at all? If it is Yes it is. Just test the $enableval whether it is "no". > installed the patch below to gnulib-tool. Thanks. I updated that to use the recommended autoconf macro argument quoting style. Bruno _______________________________________________ bug-gnulib mailing list bug-gnulib@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
