Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MVqGh-0007pw-TQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:15:15 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MVqGg-0007pF-Bj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:15:15 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57431 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MVqGf-0007p7-Qy
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:15:13 -0400
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:44182)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <quintela@redhat.com>) id 1MVqGf-0002N3-EV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:15:13 -0400
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0907282050500.2157@linmac.oyster.ru> (malc's
	message of "Tue\, 28 Jul 2009 20\:54\:09 +0400 \(MSD\)")
References: <cover.1248726105.git.quintela@redhat.com>
	<874e96d24ad01cfaf930a55ed96119d3f5e2da53.1248726105.git.quintela@redhat.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0907280101390.3551@linmac.oyster.ru>
	<4A6E31EF.6050504@us.ibm.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0907282050500.2157@linmac.oyster.ru>
From: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:13:00 +0200
Message-ID: <m3fxcgbujn.fsf@neno.mitica>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/4] Use proper struct initializers and
	remove INIT_FIELD() macro
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: malc <av1474@comtv.ru>
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

malc <av1474@comtv.ru> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>> malc wrote:
>> > On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> > 
>> > This patch is pointless.
>> >   
>> 
>> The INIT_FIELD() stuff is goofy.  struct initializers are C99 so using 
>> them conditionally on GNUC is incorrect.  Also, if you can't rely on the 
>> initializier, what's the point of even doing it at all since you cannot 
>> change order.
>
> The reason for this goofyness is that the code was fed as is to MSVC
> (in VirtualBox), the patch looks like a change for the sake of a change.

MSVC don't support C99 initializers in 2009? Wow :)

I was trying to get everything else consistent.

Later, Juan.