[Xcb] problem in xcb_conn.c, xcb_out.c, xcb_in.c
Barton C Massey
bart at cs.pdx.edu
Mon Mar 6 00:02:04 PST 2006
In message <Pine.LNX.4.51.0603050057380.8810 at cartan.iecn.u-nancy.fr> you wrote:
> > > extensions/bigreq.c:10: attention : initialisation manquante
> > > extensions/bigreq.c:10: attention : (near initialization for
> > > 'XCBBigRequestsId.global_id')
> I don't understand. "Missing initialization"? Let's see... yes, C99
> > section 6.7.8 #10 says, in part, "If an object that has static storage
> > duration is not initialized explicitly, then: ... if it has arithmetic
> > type, it is initialized to (positive or unsigned) zero;" and #19 says
> > "all subobjects that are not initialized explicitly shall be initialized
> > implicitly the same as objects that have static storage duration."
> > That's exactly the behavior I expected and wanted.
> I don't like using such "features". I don't like the compiler doing such
> things itself. In addition, i'm not sure that the code will be compiled
> with gcc 2.9* compilers.
I believe that what Jamey is telling you is that the
behavior he used is part of the C language standard (and has
been since K&R). So if your compiler complains, it is just
wrong, as far as I know. :-)
More information about the Xcb