In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > You also forgot named structure initializers, but C99 supports them > again with a different syntax than gcc [I guess it would have been too easy > to just use the gcc syntax] The named initializers syntax in C99 is from plan9, besides beeing probably older, it is from the C creators and more logic ;) I think that are enough reasons for the ANSI people to not choose the GCC syntax. Christoph -- Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: non-gcc linux? Marc Lehmann
- Re: non-gcc linux? Thomas Pornin
- Re: non-gcc linux? Ion Badulescu
- Re: non-gcc linux? Eric W. Biederman
- Re: non-gcc linux? Alan Cox
- Re: non-gcc linux? Alan Cox
- Re: non-gcc linux? Tim Riker
- Re: non-gcc linux? Kai Henningsen
- Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Wh... Ralf Baechle
- Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where ... Andi Kleen
- Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Wh... Christoph Hellwig
- Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Wh... Kai Henningsen
- Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Wh... Michael Meissner
- Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Wh... Kai Henningsen
- Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where ... Thomas Pornin
- Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where ... Kai Henningsen
- Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? Tom Rini
- Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? Alan Cox
- Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? Alan Cox
- Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? Mike Galbraith
- Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? Jeff Garzik