[Xcb] [PATCH libxcb 13/18] c_client.py: use C99 initializers instead of comments

[chris at demorecorder.com]

Hi Ran,

Thank you for these infos.
Yes, you are right, this can be handled with a patch.

Therefore:
Reviewed-by: Christian Linhart <chris at demorecorder.com>

Chris

Ran Benita wrote on 26.10.2014 16:33:

> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 06:26:15PM +0200, Christian Linhart wrote:
>> Sequence and names do match correctly as can be seen by comparing it
>> with the definition of xcb_protocol_request_t:
>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xcb/libxcb/tree/src/xcbext.h#n47
>> 
>> Therefore this does the same, however there may be another problem:
>> 
>> Is this the first instance in XCB which requires a C99-compliant compiler?
> 
> I found a use of "static inline" in xcb_out.c and the following in
> xcb_conn.c:
> 
>    #if HAVE_SENDMSG
>            [...]
>            struct msghdr msg = {
>                .msg_name = NULL,
>                .msg_namelen = 0,
>                .msg_iov = *vector,
>                .msg_iovlen = n,
>                .msg_control = cmsgbuf.buf,
>                .msg_controllen = CMSG_LEN(c->out.out_fd.nfd * sizeof (int)),
>            };
> 
> And we also use AC_PROG_CC_99 (through xorg-macros) so I think it's OK.
> 
>> Intuitively it should be safe to assume that a C99 compliant compiler is
>> available on all relevant platforms.
>> 
>> But I have one test computer which uses X11 and where this is not the case.
>> This test computer is from one of my customers and matches their production
>> system ( at least somehow ).
>> XCB may become relevant on that computer.
>> 
>> This may be a hint that there are more users where pre-C99 compatibility can
>> be relevant.
> 
> If xcb needs to be more portable to old compilers, there are few enough
> c99isms that I think a patch to remove them will be accepted. But it's
> probably better to first see which parts fail to compile.
> 
> Ran
>