On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:59:04AM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 6/28/16 11:58 AM, Phil Sutter wrote:
> >> since .ifr_qlen is already referenced in that function seems like your
> >> suggestion above (struct ifreq ifr = { .ifr_qlen = 0 };) should be
> >> acceptable.
> >
> > You mean regarding compatibility of using that define? Or are you
> > concerned with gcc creating suboptimal code?
>
> no, I was thinking in terms of open coding knowledge of a struct.
Still not sure if I understand you correctly. These are not typedefs, so
users are supposed to know the internals and removing a field means
potentially breaking every single user.
> > I'd rather use a more generic approach than the above. Retrospectively,
> > I'd rather have that brace orgy instead of the above since it's
> > intention is more clear and it can be dropped once either gcc guys
> > manage to backport their fix or the last distribution has updated it's
> > compiler.
>
> ha, that's funny.
At least someone can laugh about it. :)
Cheers, Phil
