From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <3e1162e6050704193649539ee@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon,  4 Jul 2005 19:36:58 -0700
From: David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] 8c question
In-Reply-To: <09405af8d5c18c32321c0de7b2fd90d3@terzarima.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <Pine.BSI.4.61.0507011316130.8592@malasada.lava.net>
	<09405af8d5c18c32321c0de7b2fd90d3@terzarima.net>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 61a87458-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On 7/2/05, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net> wrote:
> >>it cant be worked around without breaking the cross
> >>platform features of their headers.
>=20
> sounds brilliantly portable to me.
> what do they do?  insert 0-length padding areas
> to make these structures `portable'?
>=20
>=20
Yeah, it's undefined what happens if a struct is empty in C99. Seems a
really silly thing for someone to rely on.  What are they trying to
accomplish?  The only thing I can think of is some kind of type safety
based on a tag generated for a unique "struct".  They should probably
make it wrap a void * or something.