From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 21 May 2002 11:49:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 21 May 2002 11:49:22 -0400 Received: from exchange.macrolink.com ([64.173.88.99]:53514 "EHLO exchange.macrolink.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 21 May 2002 11:49:21 -0400 Message-ID: <11E89240C407D311958800A0C9ACF7D13A7832@EXCHANGE> From: Ed Vance To: "'Anton Altaparmakov'" Cc: ivangurdiev@linuxfreemail.com, LKML Subject: RE: Compiler question.... Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 08:49:21 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 21, 2002, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > > The error messages the compiler is generating are completely > bogus because the unnamed fields ARE of type struct or union. > It's just that they are typedeffed so that the words "struct" > and "union" do not appear. IMO that is a screwup by gcc... Agreed, IIRC, didn't ANSI C spec address this specific point? That any two types which contain matching simple types must be considered to match, regardless of how they were declared, typedef or explicitly. e.g. Unlike Pascal, typedef does not create "new" types. It creates aggregates of simple types. Ed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Vance edv@macrolink.com Macrolink, Inc. 1500 N. Kellogg Dr Anaheim, CA 92807 ----------------------------------------------------------------