[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...).

.Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]