From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: "Thomas Weißschuh" <linux@weissschuh.net>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] tools/nolibc: -std=c89 compatibility
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2023 11:28:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZDKFTvhzgVGBjr0M@1wt.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230328-nolibc-c99-v2-0-c989f2289222@weissschuh.net>
Hi Thomas,
On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 09:54:46PM +0000, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> This series replaces the C99 compatibility patch. (See v1 link below).
> After the discussion about support C99 and/or GNU89 I came to the
> conclusion supporting straight C89 is not very hard.
>
> Instead of validating both C99 and GNU89 in some awkward way only for
> somebody requesting true C89 support let's just do it this way.
>
> Feel free to squash all the comment syntax patches together if you
> prefer.
I gave it some thought, at first considering that going lower than GNU89
was possibly not very useful, but given that the changes are very small
in the end (mostly comments formating), I think that you're right. The
cost of reaching this level of portability is basically zero once the
patch is applied so I think it's worth doing it now. However I think I
will indeed squash all the comments patch together as you suggest.
Thank you!
Willy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-09 9:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-06 21:54 [PATCH v2 00/11] tools/nolibc: -std=c89 compatibility Thomas Weißschuh
2023-04-06 21:54 ` [PATCH v2 01/11] tools/nolibc: use standard __asm__ statements Thomas Weißschuh
2023-04-06 21:54 ` [PATCH v2 02/11] tools/nolibc: use __inline__ syntax Thomas Weißschuh
2023-04-06 21:54 ` [PATCH v2 03/11] tools/nolibc: i386: use C89 comment syntax Thomas Weißschuh
2023-04-06 21:54 ` [PATCH v2 04/11] tools/nolibc: x86_64: " Thomas Weißschuh
2023-04-06 21:54 ` [PATCH v2 05/11] tools/nolibc: riscv: " Thomas Weißschuh
2023-04-06 21:54 ` [PATCH v2 06/11] tools/nolibc: aarch64: " Thomas Weißschuh
2023-04-06 21:54 ` [PATCH v2 07/11] tools/nolibc: arm: " Thomas Weißschuh
2023-04-06 21:54 ` [PATCH v2 08/11] tools/nolibc: mips: " Thomas Weißschuh
2023-04-06 21:54 ` [PATCH v2 09/11] tools/nolibc: loongarch: " Thomas Weißschuh
2023-04-06 21:54 ` [PATCH v2 10/11] tools/nolibc: " Thomas Weißschuh
2023-04-06 21:54 ` [PATCH v2 11/11] tools/nolibc: validate C89 compatibility Thomas Weißschuh
2023-04-09 9:28 ` Willy Tarreau [this message]
2023-04-15 14:47 ` [PATCH v2 00/11] tools/nolibc: -std=c89 compatibility Willy Tarreau
2023-04-15 15:15 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2023-04-15 17:12 ` Willy Tarreau
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=ZDKFTvhzgVGBjr0M@1wt.eu \
--to=w@1wt.eu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@weissschuh.net \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
/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