From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
Cc: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Removing -Wdeclaration-after-statement
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2021 09:05:11 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqq35n32fjs.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <211208.86wnkfl1ni.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> ("Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason"'s message of "Wed, 08 Dec 2021 13:17:16 +0100")
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:
> Why would that be sad? The intent of -Wdeclaration-after-statement is to
> catch C90 compatibility issues. Maybe we don't want to enable everything
> C99-related in this area at once, but why shouldn't we be removing
> -Wdeclaration-after-statement once we have a hard C99 dependency?
We already heard from people that we do not want vla, and I agree
that we do not want all C99. decl-after-stmt is something I
definitely do not want in our code, in order to keep the code more
readable by declaring the things that will be used in the scope
upfront, with documentation if needed. It tends to encourage us to
keep our blocks smaller.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-08 17:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-13 12:28 [PATCH] MyFirstContribution.txt: fix undeclared variable i in sample code Saksham Mittal
2021-11-13 13:05 ` Johannes Altmanninger
2021-11-13 13:08 ` Saksham Mittal
2021-11-14 6:41 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-11-14 14:28 ` Is 'for (int i = [...]' bad for C STD compliance reasons? (was: [PATCH] MyFirstContribution.txt: fix undeclared variable i in sample code) Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-11-14 18:03 ` Is 'for (int i = [...]' bad for C STD compliance reasons? Junio C Hamano
2021-11-14 18:25 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-11-14 18:57 ` brian m. carlson
2021-11-14 19:33 ` Carlo Arenas
2021-11-14 19:01 ` Carlo Arenas
2021-11-15 6:27 ` [PATCH] revision: use C99 declaration of variable in for() loop Junio C Hamano
2021-11-15 7:44 ` Martin Ågren
2021-11-16 8:29 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-11-15 22:26 ` brian m. carlson
2021-11-17 11:03 ` Phillip Wood
2021-11-17 12:39 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-11-17 22:30 ` SZEDER Gábor
2021-11-18 7:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-12-07 11:10 ` Phillip Wood
2021-12-07 20:37 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-12-08 12:17 ` Removing -Wdeclaration-after-statement (was: [PATCH] revision: use C99 declaration of variable in for() loop) Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-12-08 17:05 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqq35n32fjs.fsf@gitster.g \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=avarab@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=phillip.wood123@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).