From: Brandon Casey <casey@nrlssc.navy.mil>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:45:52 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dir.c: avoid c99 array initialization
Message-ID: <GwKOGVPR0AVw4_Phmw1TSNzzMDtafrawMMahm2DQwh44k6uTOHkjTQ@cipher.nrlssc.navy.mil>
In-Reply-To: <871w09kvew.fsf@lysator.liu.se>

David Kågedal wrote:
> Brandon Casey <casey@nrlssc.navy.mil> writes:
> 
>> The following syntax:
>>
>>         char foo[] = {
>>                 [0] = 1,
>>                 [7] = 2,
>>                 [15] = 3
>>         };
>>
>> is a c99 construct which some compilers do not support even though they
>> support other c99 constructs. Use an alternative.
> 
> But the alternative is much worse.

_Much_ worse? In what way?

From an execution standpoint, I don't think any more work is performed.
Probably exactly the same amount of work.

From a readability standpoint, I think it is very nearly the same in
this case. The whole function is only 17 lines.

> So how important is it to support non-C99 compilers?

I think it is relative to the amount of effort it takes. If there is
a demonstrated need and a trivial work around, I think it is worth
it to support non-c99 compilers. Demonstrated need is required.

But, saying that, I posted the patch you replied to in a series that
was for informational purposes only (though I could have done a better
job labeling them). There were no comments from anyone who said that
the series solved any problems they were encountering. At some point
I will post an update.

-brandon