Marc-André Lureau writes:
> Hi
>
> - Original Message -
>> Marc-André Lureau writes:
>>
>> > - Original Message -
>> >> Marc-André Lureau writes:
>> >>
>> >> > The C standard has the initial value at 0 and the subsequent values
>> >> > incremented by 1. No need to set this exp
Hi
- Original Message -
> Marc-André Lureau writes:
>
> > - Original Message -
> >> Marc-André Lureau writes:
> >>
> >> > The C standard has the initial value at 0 and the subsequent values
> >> > incremented by 1. No need to set this explicitely.
> >> >
> >> > This will preven
Marc-André Lureau writes:
> - Original Message -
>> Marc-André Lureau writes:
>>
>> > The C standard has the initial value at 0 and the subsequent values
>> > incremented by 1. No need to set this explicitely.
>> >
>> > This will prevent from artificial "gaps" when compiling out some en
- Original Message -
> Marc-André Lureau writes:
>
> > The C standard has the initial value at 0 and the subsequent values
> > incremented by 1. No need to set this explicitely.
> >
> > This will prevent from artificial "gaps" when compiling out some enum
> > values and having unnecessa
Marc-André Lureau writes:
> The C standard has the initial value at 0 and the subsequent values
> incremented by 1. No need to set this explicitely.
>
> This will prevent from artificial "gaps" when compiling out some enum
> values and having unnecessarily large MAX values & enums arrays.
Yes, b
On 08/22/2017 10:22 AM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
The C standard has the initial value at 0 and the subsequent values
incremented by 1. No need to set this explicitely.
This will prevent from artificial "gaps" when compiling out some enum
values and having unnecessarily large MAX values & enums a
The C standard has the initial value at 0 and the subsequent values
incremented by 1. No need to set this explicitely.
This will prevent from artificial "gaps" when compiling out some enum
values and having unnecessarily large MAX values & enums arrays.
Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau
---
scri
