[pulseaudio-discuss] Allowing anonymous structs and unions

[Ahmed S. Darwish]

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Arun Raghavan <arun at accosted.net> wrote:
> On 25 September 2015 at 15:21, Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk at iki.fi> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 23:21 +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
>>> OK, after a second look, it seems that the anonymous structure indeed
>>> does not provide any extra benefit. So I believe everyone now agrees
>>> now that the following definitions are the most appropriate:
>>>
>>>     typedef struct {
>>>         pa_mem mem;           /* Parent; must be first */
>>>         int fd;
>>>     } pa_memfd;
>>>
>>>     typedef struct {
>>>         pa_mem mem;           /* Parent; must be first */
>>>         int id;
>>>         bool do_unlink;
>>>     } pa_shm;
>>>
>>> Good :-)
>>>
>>> But I can't get my head around not using the anonymous unions, and
>>> basically whether they provide any perceived disadvantage:
>>
>> I don't think Arun objected to the use of anonymous unions. I certainly
>> don't see anything wrong with using anonymous unions in pa_mempool.
>
> Yup, and I can see why I might have come off that way. I think this
> pattern is fine.
>

Great, thanks a lot everyone.

-- 
Darwish
http://darwish.chasingpointers.com