Re: dumb compilation question

[Mark McLoughlin <mark@csn.ul.ie>]

On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:

> omigosh.  i only spent a /couple of hours/ staring at this.  i told you it was
> a dumb compilation question!   hee hee.   :)

Oh, it's happened to me before as well, plenty of times ;)

<snip/>

>
> also, yesterday, i noticed that "real" drivers use a syntax to fill a fops
> structure.  was shocked to see it because i never saw this syntax before,
> but it's pretty cool.  must be a gcc extension:
>
> 	static struct file_operations fops = {
> 	  read: &device_read,
> 	  write: &device_write,
> 	  open: &device_open,
> 	  release: &device_release
> 	};
>
> this is cool beyond belief.  but the C99 way of doing things seems to work
> on gcc 2.95.3:
>
> 	static struct file_operations fops = {
> 	  .read = &device_read,
> 	  .write = &device_write,
> 	  .open = &device_open,
> 	  .release = &device_release
> 	};
>
> is it OK to use these C99'isms?  i'm only asking because people who wrote
> the bleeding edge drivers, like daryll strauss's tdfx DRI module, use the
> gcc extension rather than C99.  is it possible there's a reason for their
> choice, or is it a matter of style?

I only noticed this myself recently as well. The gcc manual suggests the
first method is obsolete since gcc 2.5[1]. Pity, I like it myself, but the
second way does seem to be more intuitive..

Good Luck,
Mark

[1] - http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc_5.html#SEC91

-
Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel.
Archive:       http://mail.nl.linux.org/
IRC Channel:   irc.openprojects.net / #kernelnewbies
Web Page:      http://www.surriel.com/kernelnewbies.shtml