[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: iterator macros and requiring gcc >= 3.0 and -std=c9x
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: iterator macros and requiring gcc >= 3.0 and -std=c9x |
Date: |
06 Sep 2002 18:23:37 +0900 |
Marcus Brinkmann <address@hidden> writes:
> driver_iterate
> {
> printf ("%s\n", driver->ops->name);
> }
>
> eliminating the need for a user-defined variable. It's no big deal, but if
> you prefer the second version, we need to use -std=c9x in our CFLAGS. What
> do you think?
Even if C99 lets you declare the variable in the for loop (eliminating
the need for a user-declaration), it still seems cleaner to pass the
name of the variable to be declared as a macro argument.
That way the name `driver' isn't magic. It also lets the user nest your
construct (however silly that may be...).
-Miles
--
.Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.