Re: [PATCH RFC tools 1/6] tools: Refactor "xentoollog" into its own library

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>]

On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 13:06 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 11.06.15 at 13:35, <ian.campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 12:20 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >> As part of the tidyup, we should choose a particular C standard (89,
> >> probably) and ensure that the API/ABI complies with `gcc -std=c$VER
> >> -pedantic`.  This will help to provide a consistent API on other
> >> platforms (I seem to recall an effort to port libvchan to windows.)
> > 
> > Shall we just follow what we do for xen/include/public i.e.
> >         $(CC) -x c -ansi -Wall -Werror
> > ? It seems sensible that the two should follow similar rules.
> > 
> > Or if not shall we change the requirements for xen/include/public to
> > match? (Jan CCd for comments)
> 
> We certainly shouldn't weaken what we do for the public headers.
> How far standard compliance matters for the library interface
> headers I really don't know.

Actually, since -ansi is the same as -std=c89 I don't think there is a
practical difference between the two.

Ian.