[Ur] sanity checking

[Karn Kallio]

> Karn Kallio wrote:
> > Well, looking at the code I thought that it should output both,
> > because gcc
> > is supposed to support non-constant initializers.  But I am not really
> > any help, because I do not know enough about gcc to say.  One thing that
> > I do notice in your example is that the printf should be leaving an
> > integer in the __uwf_1 position of tmp but how could there be space for
> > it (as uw_unit should occupy 0 size) ...
> 
> I think this is a confusion between the comma separator between
> initializer elements and the comma operator in expressions.  I think my
> use of parentheses triggers interpretation as the latter, not the former.
> 

You are right of course ... I did think it was two initializer elements, but 
now I see that your example initializes the first leaving the second to 
default ...