In article <20060828224949.GA6043@primenet.com.au>,
Geoff Wing  <gcw@pobox.com> wrote:
>On Monday 2006-08-28 17:26 +0400, Valeriy E. Ushakov output:
>:On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 13:37:41 +1000, Geoff Wing wrote:
>:> Yeah, I only had a problem with netinet/in_proto.c when compiling a
>:> kernel but I listed all with ones with empty trailing elements in
>:> the struct assignments,
>:> i.e.  { a, b, c, }, ...   vs  { a, b, c }, ...
>:It's not an empty trailing element.  C99 allows the comma after the
>:alst element in the list of initiliazers (and also in enums).
>
>I guess most of my C is still back in the 80s with only small bits and pieces
>from recent era :-)  Thank you for the explanation.  Possibly I've come
>across it before and just forgotten.
>
>In this case a struct element was removed so (in a very simple form):
>
>	struct { int a, b, c; } foo[] = { { 1, 2, } };
>went to
>	struct { int a, b; }    foo[] = { { 1, 2, } };
>
>with the structure changing but the initializer remaining the same.
>I thought it somewhat in poor form.
>
>In another message, Christos said that they'll be fixed later.  Since it
>compiles properly now, I presume it's not high priority.

Just to make things clearer, I am compiling kernels with -Wextra -Wno-unused,
and these flags complain for incomplete structure initializers.

christos