From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Randy.Dunlap" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Small initializer patch for ide-disk.c Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:04:51 -0800 Message-ID: <41C89E03.2080206@osdl.org> References: <20041221202407.GD2725@artsapartment.org> <41C88F73.2090606@pobox.com> <20041221133056.6a5a3259.akpm@osdl.org> <41C89ADE.1010403@pobox.com> <41C89C63.8090708@osdl.org> <20041221220137.GA5399@havoc.gtf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from fire.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:12701 "EHLO fire-1.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261879AbULUWGP (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:06:15 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20041221220137.GA5399@havoc.gtf.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Andrew Morton , ahaas@airmail.net, B.Zolnierkiewicz@elka.pw.edu.pl, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Jeff Garzik wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 01:57:55PM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > >>But the real question to me (other than "will some old-style >>initializers be deprecated by gcc in the future?") is > > > Note that the code in question did not use initializers at all, > so that's an unrelated issue. > > The code was, and remains, compliant to C99 standards. It looks to me like it used unnamed initializers, not named ones, and not the gcc-specific ones that we have a need to move away from. -- ~Randy