Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: reword documentation of possible pci_device_id struct

[Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>]

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 07:05:46PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Lucas De Marchi (2018-08-28 18:41:46)
> > Document it like a real struct for ease of copy and paste, remove
> > comment of C99 compatibility and document that in some cases the first 2
> 
> I do recall that we couldn't use either C99 or class due to userspace

you can't actually use a c++ compiler.

For C it works with any of -std=c99, gnu99, c11, gnu11, c17, gnu17.
Tested with both gcc and clang. I've never heard of class being a
reserved keyword and section 6.4.5 of said standard doesn't list it
neither.

Here the struct definition is in a *comment*... i.e. the user will copy
and paste somewhere else and probably change __u16 to uint16_t in
userspace. If he's building with g++, he can name the field to something
else.

If it was something we were defining in this header than I would agree
with you... to retain compatibility with c++, not c99.

Lucas De Marchi

> compatibility... The essence is that we need a reminder that we can't
> assume the relaxed nature of kcc here.
> -Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx