[ofa-general] Re: Question: remove c99 definitions within the ib_mad_f structure

[Sasha Khapyorsky]

Hi Eli,

[adding ofw list...]

On 10:13 Mon 09 Mar     , Eli Dorfman (Voltaire) wrote:
> 
> Can we revert commit 2dbb8b95d9dc27423a6fdb85d88ef385ecee0005 ?
> "remove c99 definitions within the ib_mad_f structure 
> to enable better portability with WinOF."

I suppose that just reverting will break WinOF. The whole discussion
started somewhere at:

http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/2008-December/055902.html

> Using the definitions makes the code clearer and safer to maintain.

I agree and would prefer to have C99 "on" in our tree - it is really
useful.

> Aren't there better alternative, such as using gcc for example?

WinOF Guys! This is one more call to find a way to coexist with C99.

Sasha