| To: | "Timothy Shimmin" <tes@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | RE: [Patch] xfs_lowbit64 broken on ia32 |
| From: | "Alex Elder" <aelder@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:15:41 -0800 |
| Cc: | "David Chinner" <dgc@xxxxxxx>, "Lachlan Mcllroy" <lachlan@xxxxxxx>, "xfs-oss" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs-dev" <xfs-dev@xxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <47573C8A.1060902@xxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Thread-index: | Acg3m0KQDutovHuET567HbjpQWpf9AAEZBbg |
| Thread-topic: | [Patch] xfs_lowbit64 broken on ia32 |
Timothy Shimmin wrote: > I've never heard of that either. > (Then again, I didn't know until recently that they changed C > to allow "flexible array members" in C99 > http://tigcc.ticalc.org/doc/gnuexts.html#SEC75) Yeah there's lots of fancy new stuff in C99. Like variable length arrays, language-supported complex (sqrt(-1)) data types, C++ style initializations (mid-functions). And you can declare your loop index variable inside a for loop's parentheses (its scope is defined only for the loop). I'm not ready to use most of that; it has less value than some of the "old" extensions like (void *) and 0-length arrays. But some things are defined very precisely and that's good. -Alex |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Patch] xfs_lowbit64 broken on ia32, David Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: [Patch] xfs_lowbit64 broken on ia32, Alex Elder |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Patch] xfs_lowbit64 broken on ia32, Timothy Shimmin |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Patch] xfs_lowbit64 broken on ia32, David Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |