On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Hans de Goede <hdego...@redhat.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
> >
> >
> > I don't think you should break existing code until libusbx 2.0.
> I think you should add:
> >
> > #define MaxPower bMaxPower
> >
> >
> > That was my initial thought to, but MaxPower is too generic of a
> name to define IMHO, I would
> > expect that to cause more problems then it fixes. As said few apps
> are expected to use
> > MaxPower, and fixing those who do is easy, and they will only break
> at compilation
> > time. So I'm with Pete here and suggest to just do the rename, with
> a clear warning about
> > it in the ChangeLog and NEWS files.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes the problem is easy to fix - for programmers, but not all that
> update and build packages are.
> >
> > A preferable (to me) alternative would be an anonymous union, but I was
> unsure that all compilers would accept it.
>
>
> An anonymous union would work for me, but I'm not sure all the compilers
> we want to support support
> this, esp. the windows ones may not... Pete ?
>
I checked both VC6 and 2010 Express and they were both OK.
Orin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
libusbx-devel mailing list
libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
