From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B2E0C7619A for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:47:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229563AbjDOOrX (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Apr 2023 10:47:23 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:52786 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229545AbjDOOrX (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Apr 2023 10:47:23 -0400 Received: from 1wt.eu (ded1.1wt.eu [163.172.96.212]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59D2135AE; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 07:47:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 33FEl3j6019919; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 16:47:03 +0200 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 16:47:03 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Wei=DFschuh?= Cc: Shuah Khan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] tools/nolibc: -std=c89 compatibility Message-ID: References: <20230328-nolibc-c99-v2-0-c989f2289222@weissschuh.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Hi Thomas, On Sun, Apr 09, 2023 at 11:28:46AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > 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. I've now squashed the ones about comments together, fixed the declaration inside the for statement in nolibc-test and tested with gcc 4.7 & 4.8 and confirmed it works as expected. I've queued it there for now: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wtarreau/nolibc.git/log/?h=20230415-nolibc-updates-4a Thank you! Willy