@RichFelker mishandling of compound literals? e.g. myfun(& (uint32_t) {1, 2, 3});
The most useless "GNU C" extension ever: you can omit the = in C99 designated initializers. AKA a bug failing to catch syntax errors.
-
-
-
@CrazyLogLad Can you explain what you mean? -
@RichFelker the standard permits things like struct mystruct b; b=(struct mystruct){ .a=1, .b=2}; and as myfun( &(struct mystruct){}); -
@CrazyLogLad {} is not valid C. The correct form is {0}.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@RichFelker I have to assume that this was a busted implementation that lasted so long that important projects came to depend on it. -
@stephentyrone Reportedly, important projects like Linux. The kernel developers just _love_ theur gratuitous GCC-isms. -
@RichFelker To be fair, I love me some gratuitous gcc- and clang-isms, but even to my sensibilities this is a bit ridiculous. -
@stephentyrone To me gratuitous is the key word. Useless ones should be omitted and ones only for static-analysis use should be under#ifdef
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.