CodyIT@programming.dev to Linux@lemmy.ml · 8 months agoThe Linux Kernel Looks To "Bite The Bullet" In Enabling Microsoft C Extensionswww.phoronix.comexternal-linkmessage-square9linkfedilinkarrow-up152arrow-down117cross-posted to: linux@sh.itjust.workspulse_of_truth@infosec.publinux@programming.dev
arrow-up135arrow-down1external-linkThe Linux Kernel Looks To "Bite The Bullet" In Enabling Microsoft C Extensionswww.phoronix.comCodyIT@programming.dev to Linux@lemmy.ml · 8 months agomessage-square9linkfedilinkcross-posted to: linux@sh.itjust.workspulse_of_truth@infosec.publinux@programming.dev
minus-squaremina86deleted by creatorlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up47·edit-23 months agodeleted by creator
minus-squareObin@feddit.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up19·8 months agoYou mean ‘unnamed’ is what’s confusing you? Normally you can do anonymous struct/union members or struct struct/union members that are tagged structs but not anonymous. I.e. in standard C you’d have to do either: struct foo { int baz; }; struct bar { struct foo foo; }; ... struct bar data; data.foo.baz = 0; or: struct bar { struct { int baz; } foo; }; ... struct bar data; data.baz = 0; but to do the following, you’d need the extension: struct foo { int baz; }; struct bar { struct foo; }; ... struct bar data; data.baz = 0;
minus-squaremina86deleted by creatorlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8·edit-23 months agodeleted by creator
minus-squareMinekPo1 [it/she]@lemmygrad.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up3·8 months ago“ANSI C” by Kernighan and Ritchie disagrees , including that syntax (note : retranslation from Polish as that’s the language my copy is in) : A8.3 […] struct-union-specifier: , union-struct identifier ₒₚₜ { compound-declaration-list } , union-struct identifier […] Specifiers of structures or unions with [a compound declaration] list, but with no label [identifier], creates a unique type; it may only be referred to in the declaration in which it is part.
minus-squaremina86deleted by creatorlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-23 months agodeleted by creator
minus-squareObin@feddit.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up3·8 months agoUnless I’m misunderstanding something, I’m pretty sure they’ve been standardized in C11. Also mentioned here.
minus-squaremina86deleted by creatorlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up13·edit-23 months agodeleted by creator
deleted by creator
Untagged?
You mean ‘unnamed’ is what’s confusing you?
Normally you can do anonymous struct/union members or struct struct/union members that are tagged structs but not anonymous.
I.e. in standard C you’d have to do either:
struct foo { int baz; }; struct bar { struct foo foo; }; ... struct bar data; data.foo.baz = 0;or:
struct bar { struct { int baz; } foo; }; ... struct bar data; data.baz = 0;but to do the following, you’d need the extension:
struct foo { int baz; }; struct bar { struct foo; }; ... struct bar data; data.baz = 0;deleted by creator
“ANSI C” by Kernighan and Ritchie disagrees , including that syntax (note : retranslation from Polish as that’s the language my copy is in) :
deleted by creator
Unless I’m misunderstanding something, I’m pretty sure they’ve been standardized in C11. Also mentioned here.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator