From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: using C99 in nasm
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:06:50 +0400
Message-ID: <20090628190650.GE19425@lenovo>
References: <20090628181915.GB19425@lenovo>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
To: NKML <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.155]:3379 "EHLO
	fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752921AbZF1TGs (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:06:48 -0400
Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e12so331589fga.17
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:06:50 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090628181915.GB19425@lenovo>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

[Cyrill Gorcunov - Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:19:15PM +0400]
| Hi,
| 
| is there a special reason why don't we
| use C99 style of assignment for structure members?
|

Oh my. Sorry for noise. Wrong mailing list.

	-- Cyrill