>>> On 18.11.14 at 16:00, <julien.gr...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 10/31/2014 09:02 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 30.10.14 at 19:51, <julien.gr...@linaro.org> wrote:
>> The naming suggests that the #if really should be around just the
>> gic_version field (with a dummy field in the #else case to be C89
>> compatible, e.g. a zero width unnamed bitfield) and the
>> corresponding #define-s above, ...
>
> Not really related to this patch... but the way to improve it (via
> extending createdomain).
>
> I need to create an empty structure. Is the dummy field really needed?
> If so, did you meant?
>
> struct
> {
> int :0;
> }
Yes.
> The C spec declare this kind of structure as undefined.
I can't find anything saying so.
> Would an empty structure and used it be better?
Empty structures (and unions) aren't valid in standard C afaics, up to
and including C11. That was the whole point of suggesting the above
alternative, with me (maybe wrongly) believing that this would be valid.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
