On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 03:18:41PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: >Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >I don't need logs in order to identify code that is not written in C. >> > >> >I asume that you understand C too, so it should be easy for you to >> >understand why this patch causes the compilation to fail on a C-Compiler. >> >> The only way this patch could cause a problem would be if the platform >> had a broken C preprocessor. As I asked, please post some compiler >> output. > >If you believe that this is a C preprocessor issue, then you seem to miss the >needed knowledge in programming. > >The patch in question tries to add code that is not valid C. > >I am not willing to add code that prevents compilation because it is not valid >C.
The only other thing that could be considered "wrong" about the patch is that it uses a leading __ in a macro name, which is reserved by the standard. Is that your objection? Otherwise, the patch provides a fix for a clear programming bug in your code - assuming alignment/packing within a structure is non-portable. Joerg, you really are incredibly difficult to work with. If you see a problem with a patch, please point it out clearly so that other people can see it too. Or do you just see this as some kind of a childish game where you can "prove" that you're better than everybody else? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. [EMAIL PROTECTED] "This dress doesn't reverse." -- Alden Spiess -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
