Re: Request for review: librefuse overhaul for supporting more filesystems

[PHO <pho%cielonegro.org@localhost>]

On 1/13/22 12:18 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 10:20:53AM +0900, PHO wrote:
>> +/* The documentation for FUSE is not clear as to what "struct
>> + * fuse_session" is, why it exists, or how it's different from "struct
>> + * fuse". For now we define it as an empty struct and treat "struct
>> + * fuse_session *" as being identical to "struct fuse *". */
>> +struct fuse_session {};
>
> Specific remark here: try to avoid empty structures. They can create a
> real hassle when interacting between C and C++ as that's explicitly
> invalid for the latter.

Thank you for pointing that out. In this case the actual size or layout 
of the struct does not matter, so I'll just leave undefined and let 
compilers treat it as an incomplete type. Do you think this is reasonable?