From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [patch 00/16] Portability Patches for git-1.7.1 (v4) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:08:16 -0400 Message-ID: <20100428020816.GC16107@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20100427135708.258636000@mlists.thewrittenword.com> <4BD7032D.9050508@drmicha.warpmail.net> <20100427175442.GB13626@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Michael J Gruber , "Gary V. Vaughan" , git@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Schwab X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Apr 28 04:08:26 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O6whN-0006tL-Ma for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2010 04:08:26 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751796Ab0D1CIU (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:08:20 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:37829 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750859Ab0D1CIT (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:08:19 -0400 Received: (qmail 5913 invoked by uid 107); 28 Apr 2010 02:08:29 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:08:29 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:08:16 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:13:02PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > Furthermore, if we do take such changes, how are we going to manage > > portability going forward? Some constructs (like non-constant > > initializers) make the code much easier to read. People _will_ submit > > patches that use them. Is somebody going to be auto-building on all of > > these platforms with vendor compilers to confirm that nothing is broken? > > You can use "gcc -pedantic" to find these portability problems. Sort of. It reports much more than we necessarily need to fix to remain portable to even remotely sane platforms. So it's a nice tool for finding problems, but somebody needs to do the work of figuring out which are important and which are not, and then periodically run with -pedantic and sort out the results. -Peff