On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 11:43:31PM +0200, Michael Veksler wrote: > Quoting Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On 12/7/05, Morten Welinder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > He is kind of right, though. Outside struct (or perhaps union), > > > zero-sized arrays > > > make little sense and could be rejected. Or else I am missing something > > too. > > > > Well, as nearly all gcc language extensions, the extension specification > > is not a formal specification, but more like handwaving ... > > > > Rather than restricting the extension, we should consider deprecating it > > (for C++!) in 4.1 and remove it from 4.2. I see no use for it in C++ code > > and recent actions were in favor of removing C++ language extensions. > > Unless they are needed for portability with C headers. > POD structs and basic types should be consistent between C and C++.
That's an argument for continuing to allow the extension in a POD.
