xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Conflicting Types Between .h and .c files

To: Danny Cox <DCox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Conflicting Types Between .h and .c files
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 19:56:41 +0100
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, XFS Mailing List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1029783129.1147.37.camel@wiley>; from DCox@SnapServer.com on Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 02:52:08PM -0400
References: <1029504550.1808.5.camel@wiley> <20020819194735.A32101@infradead.org> <1029783129.1147.37.camel@wiley>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 02:52:08PM -0400, Danny Cox wrote:
> > I don't think that's valid.  And at least gcc 3.2 doesn't complain..
> 
>       Yes, but 2.96 does.  I'd think that several folks use 2.96, since
> that's the standard gcc from RH 7.2.

Gcc '2.96' is a development snapshot.  Even if redhat ships it it's by
now ways official.

> > In this case not, as the kmem_zone_t is an object opaque to it's user.
> > Compare it to kmem_cache_t in þhe core Linux code.
> 
>       Okay, point taken.  Nevertheless, the types between the .c and .h files
> should be consistent, whatever is chosen, no?

No.  Using structs in headers and typedefs in the actual source is very
common, because you can use pointers to struct without needing the actual
declararion.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>