Strange sintax

[InuY4sha]

Hi all :)
sorry.. I know this is a very mean question but I can't get the
following couple of lines:
static int dev_init(struct net_device *dev);
struct net_device my_device = { init: dev_init, };
To me it looks something like defining a function and creating a
structure that stores a label referencing that function.. what's the
scope behind this ?
Also I don't get the comma after "dev_init"...
Can somebody explain me this sintax please ?

Thanks in advance,
RM

[Walter Roberson]

In article <99**********************************@b64g2000hsa. googlegroups.com>,
InuY4sha <in******@email.itwrote:

>sorry.. I know this is a very mean question but I can't get the
following couple of lines:
static int dev_init(struct net_device *dev);
struct net_device my_device = { init: dev_init, };
To me it looks something like defining a function and creating a
structure that stores a label referencing that function.. what's the
scope behind this ?

I suspect it is C99 and it means that the my_device field
named 'init' is to be initialized to the function pointer dev_init .

>Also I don't get the comma after "dev_init"...
Can somebody explain me this sintax please ?

C99 allows an extra comma at the end of an initialization list.
It tends to make code easier to maintain.
--
"MAMA: Oh--So now it's life. Money is life. Once upon a time freedom
used to be life--now it's money. I guess the world really do change.
WALTER: No--it was always money, Mama. We just didn't know about it."
-- Lorraine Hansberry

[WANG Cong]

InuY4sha wrote:

Hi all :)
sorry.. I know this is a very mean question but I can't get the
following couple of lines:
static int dev_init(struct net_device *dev);
struct net_device my_device = { init: dev_init, };
To me it looks something like defining a function and creating a
structure that stores a label referencing that function.. what's the
scope behind this ?

It's not a label, it's a field name. But this is not standard, and also
deprecated by gcc. You should use the standard way:

struct net_device my_device = { .init = dev_init, };

Also I don't get the comma after "dev_init"...
Can somebody explain me this sintax please ?

Just like other initialization, the last comma doesn't matter here.

--
Hi, I'm a .signature virus, please copy/paste me to help me spread
all over the world.

[WANG Cong]

Walter Roberson wrote:

In article
<99**********************************@b64g2000hsa. googlegroups.com>,
InuY4sha <in******@email.itwrote:

>>sorry.. I know this is a very mean question but I can't get the
following couple of lines:
static int dev_init(struct net_device *dev);
struct net_device my_device = { init: dev_init, };
To me it looks something like defining a function and creating a
structure that stores a label referencing that function.. what's the
scope behind this ?

I suspect it is C99 and it means that the my_device field
named 'init' is to be initialized to the function pointer dev_init .

No. C99 uses the ".identifier" form.

And yes, 'init' should be a member of the net_device struct, and a function
pointer of that type like dev_init().

--
Hi, I'm a .signature virus, please copy/paste me to help me spread
all over the world.

[Ben Pfaff]

ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) writes:

C99 allows an extra comma at the end of an initialization list.

So does C89.
--
int main(void){char p[]="ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuv wxyz.\
\n",*q="kl BIcNBFr.NKEzjwCIxNJC";int i=sizeof p/2;char *strchr();int putchar(\
);while(*q){i+=strchr(p,*q++)-p;if(i>=(int)sizeof p)i-=sizeof p-1;putchar(p[i]\
);}return 0;}

[user923005]

On Apr 2, 9:06*am, Ben Pfaff <[e-mail]:

[e-mail] (Walter Roberson) writes:

C99 allows an extra comma at the end of an initialization list.

So does C89.

There are some compilers that will blow a gasket, though (e.g. those
for OpenVMS).

[Ben Pfaff]

user923005 <dc*****@connx.comwrites:

On Apr 2, 9:06*am, Ben Pfaff <[e-mail]:

>[e-mail] (Walter Roberson) writes:

C99 allows an extra comma at the end of an initialization list.

So does C89.

There are some compilers that will blow a gasket, though (e.g. those
for OpenVMS).

Then they aren't C89 compilers.

C99 did add the ability to add a trailing comma in one context:
within the list of enumerated values in an enum definition.
--
"All code should be deliberately written for the purposes of instruction.
If your code isn't readable, it isn't finished yet."
--Richard Heathfield

[Dann Corbit]

"Ben Pfaff" <bl*@cs.stanford.eduwrote in message
news:87************@blp.benpfaff.org...

user923005 <dc*****@connx.comwrites:

>On Apr 2, 9:06 am, Ben Pfaff <[e-mail]:

>>[e-mail] (Walter Roberson) writes:
C99 allows an extra comma at the end of an initialization list.

So does C89.

There are some compilers that will blow a gasket, though (e.g. those
for OpenVMS).

Then they aren't C89 compilers.

True enough, but I have to use them.
;-)

C99 did add the ability to add a trailing comma in one context:
within the list of enumerated values in an enum definition.
--
"All code should be deliberately written for the purposes of instruction.
If your code isn't readable, it isn't finished yet."
--Richard Heathfield

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com