On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Andrew Talbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > James Hawkins wrote: > > > > > It's ugly. What warning are you trying to fix? > > > > Although I imagine that gcc doesn't do anything particularly adverse as a > result of the existing code, if the pedantic switch were applied it would > cause a message of the following type to be generated. > > action.c:236: error: array size missing in ?StandardActions? > > I believe it is also likely to show up under lint-like tools and I believe > it is actually an error, though compilers are not required to generate any > message, apparently. I couldn't say whether the resultant behaviour is > undefined, implemenation defined, or what. And I don't know whether gcc > places any surplus baggage in any segment as a result. The fix was just to > make the code correct and hence more portable. >
That's fine, but it's not worth it to me, and I'm pretty sure Julliard won't accept it either. -- James Hawkins