From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sam <sah@softcardsystems.com>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] "ridiculous benchmarks"-r-us
In-Reply-To: <473f99eea04976b0758b7170409ea0d8@terzarima.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0401091542580.4947-100000@athena>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Fri,  9 Jan 2004 15:44:06 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: b5fd3858-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> worse, i've had gcc fanatics work themselves up into a terrible
> state about how presumptious it was for Plan 9 C to add its own extensions.
> since i've historically been troubled more by bugs in gcc than
> bugs in Plan 9's C, i've not been much impressed.
>

And darnit'all if I didn't look closely enough.  Already in:

http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Compound-Literals.html#Compound%20Literals
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Unnamed-Fields.html#Unnamed%20Fields