On Sun, 25 Jul 2010, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 09:55:10PM +0200, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 07/25/10 20:12, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 01:36:07AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010, Stefan Farfeleder wrote:
declaring enums like this is n
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 09:55:10PM +0200, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> On 07/25/10 20:12, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 01:36:07AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 24 Jul 2010, Stefan Farfeleder wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>declaring enums like this is not standard C code
On 07/25/10 20:12, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 01:36:07AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010, Stefan Farfeleder wrote:
declaring enums like this is not standard C code (seems to be a GCC
extension). I don't think we should use this feature in our headers
On 2010-07-25 20:12, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> I looked at the C99, and indeed, there is an explicit sentence
> "A type specifier of the form enum identifier without an enumerator list
> shall only appear after the type it specifies is complete."
Later in the same section it even has:
6. A declara
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 01:36:07AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010, Stefan Farfeleder wrote:
>
> >declaring enums like this is not standard C code (seems to be a GCC
> >extension). I don't think we should use this feature in our headers.
>
> This is unfortunate. This is because t
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010, Stefan Farfeleder wrote:
declaring enums like this is not standard C code (seems to be a GCC
extension). I don't think we should use this feature in our headers.
This is unfortunate. This is because the size of an enum variable
depends on its complete declaration. This i
Hi Konstantin,
declaring enums like this is not standard C code (seems to be a GCC
extension). I don't think we should use this feature in our headers.
Stefan
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 06:14:34PM +, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> Author: kib
> Date: Sat Jul 24 18:14:34 2010
> New Revision: 21045
