From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:23:06 +0000 Subject: Re: [KJ] for loops and variable declarations... Message-Id: <20070605122306.GD8605@parisc-linux.org> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 07:59:19AM -0400, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote: > This is 2007. C99 is not "new" and anybody writing new code designed for > an earlier version of C is certainly hopped up on crack at the very least. Yes, we're all hopped up on crack. > A second valid point is that the Linux kernel requires not only the GNU > CC, but a relatively recent GNU CC, and someone trying to use any other > compiler with it is recommended to have fun banging their head against the > wall. Especially since there are many (yes, MANY) places in the code that > not only use C99+GNU-only constructs, but in fact use pure GNU-only > extensions which have been discussed and approved several times on this > list. > > The time is long past to even joke about supporting any compiler other > than GCC. If -c99 isn't in the CFLAGS by now, it needs to be. Actually, this is explicitly forbidden in the Linux kernel: # warn about C99 declaration after statement CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-Wdeclaration-after-statement,) Just because it's supported by the compiler, and permitted by a standard, doesn't make it good CodingStyle. Speaking of CodingStyle, the original poster should see Documentation/CodingStyle chapter 6 for why this isn't a problem. _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list Kernel-janitors@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors