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: Should typedef'd unnamed structs be supported?

From: Philipp Thomas <pthomas at suse dot de>
To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:12:16 +0100
Subject: Re: Should typedef'd unnamed structs be supported?
Organization: SuSE Linux AG
References: <20030325173813.GI21892@paradies.suse.de> <20030327015343.GE25037@redhat.com> <20030327085711.GQ21892@paradies.suse.de> <20030327091552.GA16558@redhat.com>

* Richard Henderson (rth at redhat dot com) [20030327 10:18]:

> Please smack the ntfs folk for me please.  This is gross.

I tried to, but alas, instead of accepting a patch that fixes the code the
maintainer chose instead to add -fms-extensions to ntfs/Makefile :(

Philipp

-- 
Philipp Thomas <pthomas at suse dot de>
SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nuremberg, Germany

References:
- Should typedef'd unnamed structs be supported?
  - From: Philipp Thomas
- Re: Should typedef'd unnamed structs be supported?
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: Should typedef'd unnamed structs be supported?
  - From: Philipp Thomas
- Re: Should typedef'd unnamed structs be supported?
  - From: Richard Henderson

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