On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 07:58 -0700, Brian Paul wrote: > 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.
On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 09:47 -0700, tom fogal wrote: > I'd vote against it. I remember hitting an issue porting some of my > own code that used anonymous unions. Further, a downstream app I work > on needs to support AIX's native build environment; I haven't checked, > but that toolchain always gives me grief && so I doubt it supports > anonymous unions. OK. It's gone now. Brian, Tom, thanks for the feedback. Jose _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
