Re: [patch] c99-isms

Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>> Oops! Actually... I'm not sure how that compiled (given that the
>>> problems I'm having are from non-c99 compilers!) :-). You're right of
>>> course, the assignments should be moved below. Can you do that bit of
>>> cut-and-paste, or do you want a fresh patch?
>> If you give me a fresh patch, you'll be demonstrating a measurable amount of
>> respect for my time. If you give me a fresh patch that applies cleanly
>> against the trunk (as we request all patches to, and as your last one did
>> not), you might even get to be my Favorite Person of the Day. :-)
>
> Well, there is an added whitespace in util.c where I made the change
> causing a conflict; it probably won't backport cleanly either :-).
> Anyway, updated patch (against trunk r36796) attached.

You missed a case of declaration-after-assignment, but I'll fix it. Also, I
changed all the declarations you touched from merely:

   struct some_struct;

to:

   struct some_struct = { 0 };

which is consistent with the way other code in our codebase inits
stack-allocated structures.

Thanks for the patch.

-- 
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Distributed Development On Demand
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1434574