[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for Xen 4.5] xen/arm: Add support for GICv3 for domU
>>> On 18.11.14 at 16:00, <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/31/2014 09:02 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 30.10.14 at 19:51, <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> The naming suggests that the #if really should be around just the >> gic_version field (with a dummy field in the #else case to be C89 >> compatible, e.g. a zero width unnamed bitfield) and the >> corresponding #define-s above, ... > > Not really related to this patch... but the way to improve it (via > extending createdomain). > > I need to create an empty structure. Is the dummy field really needed? > If so, did you meant? > > struct > { > int :0; > } Yes. > The C spec declare this kind of structure as undefined. I can't find anything saying so. > Would an empty structure and used it be better? Empty structures (and unions) aren't valid in standard C afaics, up to and including C11. That was the whole point of suggesting the above alternative, with me (maybe wrongly) believing that this would be valid. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |