Re: [PATCH] Fix PR c/6660

[Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>]

On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 09:11:02PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> 	typedef struct {
> 	  int x;
> 	} a;
> 	typedef struct {
> 	  a;
> 	  int y;
> 	} b;
> 
> 	int foo(b *n) {
> 	  return n->x + n->y;
> 	}
> 
> > What do you think, by the by, of limiting this sort of ugliness to
> > some sort of -fmsvc-{lossage,compatibility} switch?
> 
> I think this would be a useful extension for lots of targets, not just
> for windows compatibility.

This is useful?!?

I quite agree that anonymous unions and structs are useful
as documented at present.  I do not see what good this is.
To me it looks like assigning a random meaning to a syntax
error.

Perhaps you can show me a real-world example of a situation
in which you consider this useful?


r~