|
From: Philipp T. <pt...@su...> - 2004-03-03 13:39:47
|
* Anton Altaparmakov (ai...@ca...) [20040303 14:00]: > We could do that. But I still don't see why we have to... We supply > -fms-extensions, so why doesn't it work for some people? It seems to me > every gcc version does something different with respect to anonymous > structures/unions... gcc-2.96 worked as is, later gcc 3.something > didn't work at all, then a later one worked with -fms-extensions. But > people using various architecture ports of gcc still complain it doesn't > work. Ugh... Yes, gcc does have bugs, does that wonder? > Would all our problems go away if we were to remove the use of anonymous > structs and unions in typedefs (i.e. just removed the typedefs and used > struct blah instead of blah) everywhere? For current 3.X that should suffice. > Would it then work with all versions of gcc? (including 2.95?) If not > which versions would it work with? To make such a big move there would > have to be a pretty good reason as it would mean making the next libntfs > release no longer compatible with the previous one on both a binary and > source code level... Why would they be binary incompatible? The result of using 'struct foo;' without -fms-extensions and 'foo;' with -fms-extensions should be identical, so this change shouldn't affect the ABI. > > Wouldn't the above not be enough reason to refrain from using such > > constructs? > > No. (-: It works on MS Windows/Visual C++ so why shouldn't it work on > Linux? It works on MSVC++ because MS has sole control of that compiler and may implement or not implement as they choose to do, including redefining things the C standard defines differently. The aim of the GCC developers is foremost to create a standard compliant compiler and not to implement some obscure vendor extension. If MS would have had sensible and farsighted folks in the compiler division, they would have seen what a mess the use of unnamed structs/unions in typedefs creates and would have left that out. > It is very annoying not to be able to just copy some MS header > files because of this issue... I understand, but you're barking up the wrong tree :) Blame MS, not the GCC folks. Philipp -- Philipp Thomas SUSE LINUX AG, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuremberg, Germany |
