From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from grace.univie.ac.at (grace.univie.ac.at [131.130.3.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83F3C42EEB0 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2026 08:55:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=131.130.3.115 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780649720; cv=none; b=CZrGylGAfRNGFqKrLpZNTxK8Vr61pM0dWIDqFEfYaLKc5CMSBtxMLqHWB2FkLRaYiVbvi0/4ifaVc/STzTxFeIGKT0KJpnaWUc7wepBWgphH1aD9oeHYLlboDoagLx0Xj5LfcWZ7I0o639LE8gmkf91E3n0ZGGKi2a8XsGZEFOE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780649720; c=relaxed/simple; bh=RiP7x0fhI+ry+stlhlDN2p0SgBPR8gvbPTILDJ5GBx8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=u24TM7btSygI0YqXMcYGrxPc24kHb1wJluptxYuyqIi270LBtVt9Ro2s1llnZsDmC5tyi9pavUVu1aeGs83jN7v1Giq5rySt+u2dZAZVIr/7VukVXcgYxhP6r+Z1KVYZ+uHNvGtZEHm7zXKyxslr+ph7msq4WtmmarJUajZzWtc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=univie.ac.at; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=univie.ac.at; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=univie.ac.at header.i=@univie.ac.at header.b=Wgi6TewI; arc=none smtp.client-ip=131.130.3.115 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=univie.ac.at Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=univie.ac.at Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=univie.ac.at header.i=@univie.ac.at header.b="Wgi6TewI" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=univie.ac.at; s=rev4; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=9l7ugq4hoLlLO+p69Tgy/KOTOB11z/mRZuD1/RWtlxw=; b=Wgi6TewI8kDPjHFzrSiV4ZGMLs 9yGuloVm1/4m4rZwDH8Tnk9b/t/YFCOUgc21OiCnxEDMnUry8J0xTlyLApEyj8z4i+tBLt2zHGZNq W8gyDCr/pN9fYmuhJET3HHoM6ey5uYXvLs85/p5TQtWSAkS2jHcyv7z2JHSXA7KdjSzuPpNXjTG1V j/FgRNjxmTcv0aHyMf5OG7BVWh+zhnJZfR43IfkgHDUc4oOr+P8LG3sRsIx0xWuPpAtQeoo8BGVeq E/oqT+ZwzzORdS8hbGR+qM2LZFNsP9M94yja49EpOnydCLGbhRHAWdPWFpxWRK5ZmyK7Isc0Ijal2 h0sRilzw==; Received: from justin.univie.ac.at ([131.130.3.111] helo=justin.univie.ac.at) by grace.univie.ac.at with esmtps (TLS1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:X25519MLKEM768) (Exim 4.99.4) (envelope-from ) id 1wVQAu-00000007Clv-0NYn; Fri, 05 Jun 2026 10:45:08 +0200 Received: from 84-115-215-81.cable.dynamic.surfer.at ([84.115.215.81] helo=four.local) by justin.univie.ac.at with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:X25519MLKEM768) (Exim 4.99.4) (envelope-from ) id 1wVQAt-00000003p0V-3yF8; Fri, 05 Jun 2026 10:45:08 +0200 Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 10:44:40 +0200 From: Dominik Loidolt To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Alejandro R =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sede=F1o?= , Alejandro =?iso-8859-1?B?Ui4gU2VkZfFv?= , =?iso-8859-1?Q?=C6var_Arnfj=F6r=F0?= Bjarmason Subject: Re: [PATCH] compat/posix.h: enable UNUSED warning messages for Clang Message-ID: References: <20260503151210.36036-1-dominik.loidolt@univie.ac.at> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Univie-Virus-Scan: scanned by ClamAV on justin.univie.ac.at On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 10:41:16AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Does this "drop support" because you force _all_ versions of Clang > > to use the "deprecated" attribute, even though you _know_ some older > > versions do not understand it? Don't these versions identify > > themselves so that you can do > > > > #if defined(__clang__) && CLANG_VERSION >= 2.9 > > IOW, something like this, perhaps? Yes, you're right. My original patch breaks older Clang versions for no good reason. I'll send a v2 with an explicit Clang version check, as you suggested. Thanks, Dominik