Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:23:21 +0530 From: Joseph Koshy <joseph.koshy@gmail.com> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: current@freebsd.org, Garance A Drosehn <gad@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [current tinderbox] failure on ...all... Message-ID: <84dead7205061001534b9385b3@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <863brq3bbz.fsf@xps.des.no> References: <20050609234619.AD1F67306E@freebsd-current.sentex.ca> <p0621025fbeceac0673f8@128.113.24.47> <84dead720506091950779d1661@mail.gmail.com> <86oeae3d8f.fsf@xps.des.no> <84dead72050610001675a32c19@mail.gmail.com> <863brq3bbz.fsf@xps.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> The warning is correct. Two identical types with different > not the same type unless one is a direct or indirect typedef=20 > for the other. You are right. I was under the impression that the C type system based on structural equivalence. > It also seems strange to me that you on the one hand=20 > introduce a new struct to separate MD and MI interfaces,=20 > and on the other hand continue to assume that they are=20 > assignment-compatible. =20 I'd be very surprised if two C structures with identical=20 definitions were not assignment compatible. The code in=20 question would have changed (to something like what it is now)=20 had the MD struct changed in the future. --=20 FreeBSD Volunteer, http://people.freebsd.org/~jkoshy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?84dead7205061001534b9385b3>