[Pvfs2-developers] state machine compiler tweaks

[Walter B. Ligon III]

OK, I didn't know.  That makes sense (though I wonder why they chose a 
different syntax ...)

Walt

Rob Ross wrote:
> 
> 
> 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

-- 
Dr. Walter B. Ligon III
Associate Professor
ECE Department
Clemson University