Even better might be to do neither: eliminate support for void data, and
give the declaration a type that doesn't provoke so much discussion.
It's just a placeholder.

On 1 July 2012 23:32, Charles Forsyth <charles.forsyth@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, I was assuming the same approach as for the existing void data
> declaration, that the structure is given a nominal size,
> for just the reasons you give.  (That's what gcc seems to do.)
>