On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Andrew Talbot Andrew.Talbot@talbotville.com wrote:
James Hawkins wrote:
It's ugly. What warning are you trying to fix?
Although I imagine that gcc doesn't do anything particularly adverse as a result of the existing code, if the pedantic switch were applied it would cause a message of the following type to be generated.
action.c:236: error: array size missing in ?StandardActions?I believe it is also likely to show up under lint-like tools and I believe it is actually an error, though compilers are not required to generate any message, apparently. I couldn't say whether the resultant behaviour is undefined, implemenation defined, or what. And I don't know whether gcc places any surplus baggage in any segment as a result. The fix was just to make the code correct and hence more portable.
That's fine, but it's not worth it to me, and I'm pretty sure Julliard won't accept it either.