On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 02:53:13PM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@newton.ch.collab.net> writes:
> > Oh, I just meant that if we ever change the definition of a struct,
> > your static initialization would more likely break, compared to
> > palloc'ing it.
>
> Well, if the definition of the struct changes, anyone constructing one
> by hand will often have to compensate. I don't think that's affected
> by whether it's allocated on the stack or in the heap. (In fact,
> maybe the static initialization will generate a compiler warning if
> not all fields are present? That would be nice.)
gcc, at least, generates such warnings.
sam th
sam@uchicago.edu
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
GnuPG Key:
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:24 2006