Open
Conversation
…y instead of zero size array
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hello,
follow up from #224, there were still some zero size array members left.
I replaced them with flexible array members. This caused problems, because flexible array members are not allowed in unions.
Therefore the anonymous struct was put into it's own named struct.
This change enables compilation using
-stc=c99, instead ofgnu99, which should increase compatibility with C-compilers.Using
-D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700instead of-D_GNU_SOURCEshould increase portability.Compiling with
-Wextra -Wpedantic, the compiler issued a warning, that anonymous unions are an extension in C11. The easiest fix could be using-std=c11or is there a reason for using C99?Best regards,
BarrOff