On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 08:42:45AM -0500, Kevin P. Fleming wrote: > Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > > On the other hand, you wouldn't expect the compiler to fail so badly. > > I really do not understand this comment at all. First, all software has > bugs, compilers included. The maintainers of those packages then fix the > bugs and make new releases. > > GCC 2.95.3 was released over six years ago. Every version of GCC 3.x and > 4.x is able to handle this construct, and they should be, since it is > completely valid C. > > If you want to come up with macros that can be used in exactly the same > way that the current ones are, don't require any additional storage and > aren't more difficult to maintain, then feel free to contribute them.
that's my plan, yes - you know i usally do contribute code :) I am not asking for others to fix anything or do work for me; I am just pointing out a subtle compiler bug in handling a not-so-common construct, so next time someone is hit by a similar bug (in some other compiler, e.g. maybe trying to port asterisk to some other platform) there is at least a trace on the archives. cheers luigi _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-dev mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev