On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:59:04AM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 6/28/16 11:58 AM, Phil Sutter wrote:
> >> since .ifr_qlen is already referenced in that function seems like your
> >> suggestion above (struct ifreq ifr = { .ifr_qlen = 0 };) should be
> >> acceptable.
> >
> > You mean regarding comp
On 6/28/16 11:58 AM, Phil Sutter wrote:
since .ifr_qlen is already referenced in that function seems like your
suggestion above (struct ifreq ifr = { .ifr_qlen = 0 };) should be
acceptable.
You mean regarding compatibility of using that define? Or are you
concerned with gcc creating suboptimal
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:37:43AM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 6/28/16 11:37 AM, Phil Sutter wrote:
> >>> I saw these too with gcc-3.4.6 but not with 5.3.0. It appears to be a
> >>> gcc bug[1]. One possible workaround is to match the brace level of the
> >>> first field, but it's quite ugly: [2]
On 6/28/16 11:37 AM, Phil Sutter wrote:
I saw these too with gcc-3.4.6 but not with 5.3.0. It appears to be a
gcc bug[1]. One possible workaround is to match the brace level of the
first field, but it's quite ugly: [2]. Another way might be to
initialize one of the fields to zero, like so:
| str
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 02:10:49PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 20:23:02 +0200
> Phil Sutter wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:59:12AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 17:34:08 +
> > > Phil Sutter wrote:
> > >
> > > > This
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 20:23:02 +0200
Phil Sutter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:59:12AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 17:34:08 +
> > Phil Sutter wrote:
> >
> > > This is v3 of my C99-style initializer related patch series. The changes
> > > since v2 are
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:59:12AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 17:34:08 +
> Phil Sutter wrote:
>
> > This is v3 of my C99-style initializer related patch series. The changes
> > since v2 are:
[...]
>
> I like the idea and it makes code cleaner. But doing this i
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 17:34:08 +
Phil Sutter wrote:
> This is v3 of my C99-style initializer related patch series. The changes
> since v2 are:
>
> - Flattened embedded struct's initializers:
> Since the field names are very short, I figured it makes more sense to
> keep indenting low. Also
Le 23/06/2016 19:34, Phil Sutter a écrit :
> This is v3 of my C99-style initializer related patch series. The changes
> since v2 are:
Compile-tested with a gcc 4.4.7.
Regards,
Nicolas
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 09:17:07AM +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Phil Sutter
> > Sent: 23 June 2016 18:34
> >
> > This is v3 of my C99-style initializer related patch series.
> ...
>
> It would be interesting to know how this affect the kernel code size?
>
> While gcc will generate a me
From: Phil Sutter
> Sent: 23 June 2016 18:34
>
> This is v3 of my C99-style initializer related patch series.
...
It would be interesting to know how this affect the kernel code size?
While gcc will generate a memset() call for 'struct foo = {0}' if you
initialise some members it might generate e
This is v3 of my C99-style initializer related patch series. The changes
since v2 are:
- Flattened embedded struct's initializers:
Since the field names are very short, I figured it makes more sense to
keep indenting low. Also, the same style is already used in
ip/xfrm_policy.c so take that
12 matches
Mail list logo
