From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <19f6168fb6b109424ddbb1d276d62e6b@brasstown.quanstro.net> Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 23:34:08 +0100 Message-ID: From: Charles Forsyth To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cdf13429a081504c3cc476e Subject: Re: [9fans] cc nit? Topicbox-Message-UUID: a0bd01fc-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --000e0cdf13429a081504c3cc476e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 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.) > --000e0cdf13429a081504c3cc476e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even better might be to do neither: eliminate support for void data, and gi= ve the declaration a type that doesn't provoke so much discussion.
= It's just a placeholder.

On 1 July 20= 12 23:32, Charles Forsyth <charles.forsyth@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, I was assuming the sam= e approach as for the existing void data declaration, that the structure is= given a nominal size,
for just the reasons you give. =C2=A0(That's what gcc seems to do.)

--000e0cdf13429a081504c3cc476e--