On 10/12/2010 02:06 AM, José Fonseca wrote:
What you guys feel about anonymous unions?
I happened to committed some code with anonymous unions, but it caused
gcc to choke when -std=c99 option is specified, which is only specified
with automake but scons.
After some search, it looks like anonymous unions are not part of C99,
but are part of C++ and will reportedly be part of C1X [1]. I think all
major compilers support it.
I heard they are also often used together with bit fields to describe
hardware registers.
But for this to work to gcc we need to remove -std=c99, or replace with
-std=gnu99, or pass -fms-extensions together with -std=c99.
I don't care much either way. I'd just like to hear what's the general
opinion on this to avoid ping-ponging on this matter.
Jose
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Unnamed-Fields.html#Unnamed-Fields
When I have a choice, I prefer to go with what is more portable. I
think this is especially important for core Mesa/gallium to maximize
portability to new compilers/platforms. You never know what's going
to come along.
-Brian
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
