On 27 November 2017 at 08:58, Alexandros Frantzis
<alexandros.frant...@collabora.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:20:35AM +0200, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 18:36:43 +0000
>> Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Alexandros,
>> >
>> > On 16 November 2017 at 16:20, Alexandros Frantzis
>> > <alexandros.frant...@collabora.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > +ZUC_TEST(timespec_test, timespec_is_zero)
>> > > +{
>> > > + struct timespec zero = { 0 };
>> > > + struct timespec non_zero_sec = { 1, 0 };
>> > > + struct timespec non_zero_nsec = { 0, 1 };
>> > > +
>> > The standard (be that POSIX or C99) does not guarantee the layout of
>> > the struct. Hence the above approach may work, but it's a bad idea.
>> > Personally I'm a fan of C99 designated initializers, although one
>> > could set the tv_sec and tv_nsec individually.
>> >
>> > Same comment applies through the rest of the series.
>>
>> That's actually a very good point, I missed it!
>>
>> Alexandros, can you revise, please?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> pq
>
> Hi Pekka and Emil,
>
> I have sent v2 for the 01/12 patch with the fix. I checked the rest of
> the patches and this is the only point the struct members are
> initialized without using the member names.
>
Indeed only 1/12 is affected - I must be seeing things ;-)
Small correction: timespec is part of the C11 spec and not C99 as
mentioned previously.
-Emil
_______________________________________________
wayland-devel mailing list
wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
