On 2002.10.12 Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
[...]
>> >
>> >why would you want to remove the list_t declaration? I don't see it.
>> >list_t is just like task_t for struct task_struct etc...
>> >
>>
>> [..] The main
>> argument was that you can't pre-declare a task_t, but you can
>> with a struct task_t.
>
>so you want to remove task_t too? If yes just grep -v typedef all over
>the tree, and at least it'll be a somehow more coherent decsion ;).
>It's not that list_t forbids you to use struct list_head for
>predeclarations.
>
There is something I do not understand:
struct tst {
struct x_t *x;
}
does not need any predeclaraion, tested with gcc -Wall, 2.96, 3.0.4, 3.2.
struct tst {
x_t *x;
}
needs it, but you can predeclare a
typedef struct x_t x_t;
if do not want the full include. So I really do not know why everybody
agreed on removing it.
???
-- J.A. Magallon <jamagallon@able.es> \ Software is like sex: werewolf.able.es \ It's better when it's free Mandrake Linux release 9.1 (Cooker) for i586 Linux 2.4.20-pre10-jam1 (gcc 3.2 (Mandrake Linux 9.0 3.2-2mdk)) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 15 2002 - 22:00:41 EST