This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [using gcc book] 5.20 compound literals


On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Chris Devers wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Stephan T. Lavavej wrote:
>
> > [Chris Devers]
> > > The following passage appears in chapter five,
> > > section 5.20 (Compound Literals).
> > >
> > > I'm considering clarifying this paragraph as follows:
> >
> > I've looked over the two paragraphs several times and they look
> > character-for-character identical to me.  Copy-and-paste error?
>
> Nuts... yeah, probably a cut & paste think-o, the paragraphs
> are much different.  Sorry about that.  Let's try again.
>
> Original:
>
>     As a GNU extension, GCC allows initialization of objects
>     with static storage duration by compound literals (which is
>     not possible in ISO C99, because the initializer is not a
>     constant). It is handled as if the object was initialized
>     only with the bracket enclosed list if compound literal's
>     and object types match. The initializer list of the compound
>     literal must be constant. If the object being initialized
>     has array type of unknown size, the size is determined by
>     compound literal size.
>
> Edited:
>
>     As a GNU extension, GCC allows initialization of objects
>     with static storage duration by compound literals.  This is
>     not possible in ISO C99, because the initializer is not a
>     constant.  If the type of the compound literal matches that
>     of the object, this behaves as if the object was initialized
>     only with the brace enclosed list.  The initializer list
>     of the compound literal must be constant.  If the object
>     being initialized has array type of unknown size, the size
>     is determined by compound literal size.
>
>
> Now do they look different, does the revised one look cleaner, etc?
>
> Thanks, and sorry again about the mis-paste :)


So.... does anyone have an opinion on this change?

Going once...

Going twice...



-- 
Chris Devers    cdevers@pobox.com

undocumented, adj.
(Of a feature) essential.

    -- from _The Computer Contradictionary_, Stan Kelly-Bootle, 1995


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]