[Pvfs2-developers] state machine compiler tweaks

[Rob Ross]

Pete Wyckoff wrote:
> walt at clemson.edu wrote on Tue, 30 May 2006 09:28 -0400:
>> Which is more common in compilers:
>>
>> static struct foo foobar = {
>> 	field1: value1,
>> 	field4: value4
>> 	};
>>
>> OR what's shown below:
>>
>> static struct foo foobar = {
>> 	.field1 = value1,
>> 	.field4 = value4
>> 	};
>>
>> The first is used by the kernel code, and  has been around for quite a 
>> while.  I'm not sure what the second form gives us that the first one 
>> doesn't.  Unless there is a good reason otherwise we should probably 
>> stick with the most widely supported.
> 
> The first is a gcc-only extension, obsolete since gcc 2.5 according
> to their manual.  The latter is part of the ISO C99 spec.  If we
> were going to convert from the unnamed version to anything, I'd have
> a strong preference for going with the spec.

Agree.

[snip]

> I think our only problem would be with an old vendor-supplied
> compiler.  And my feel is that we should not bother supporting such
> if it reduces our code quality.  For the next release, let's leave
> in the few places (dist-*.c, and soon statecomp) where these are
> used and see if anybody complains.  It will be easy enough to back
> it out.  Other opinions?

I totally agree with your logic and think this is the right thing to do.

Rob