Eric Blake writes:
> On 09/23/2014 08:23 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Eric Blake writes:
>>
>>> The previous commit demonstrated that the generator had several
>>> flaws with less-than-perfect enums:
>>> - an enum that listed the same string twice (or two variant
>>> strings that map to the
On 09/23/2014 08:23 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Eric Blake writes:
>
>> The previous commit demonstrated that the generator had several
>> flaws with less-than-perfect enums:
>> - an enum that listed the same string twice (or two variant
>> strings that map to the same C enum) ended up generat
Eric Blake writes:
> The previous commit demonstrated that the generator had several
> flaws with less-than-perfect enums:
> - an enum that listed the same string twice (or two variant
> strings that map to the same C enum) ended up generating an
> invalid C enum
> - because the generator adds a
The previous commit demonstrated that the generator had several
flaws with less-than-perfect enums:
- an enum that listed the same string twice (or two variant
strings that map to the same C enum) ended up generating an
invalid C enum
- because the generator adds a _MAX terminator to each enum,
the
