From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MJX9o-0005jw-V0
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:25:17 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MJX9k-0005c3-8Q
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:25:16 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40115 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MJX9j-0005bf-Ox
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:25:11 -0400
Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:40510)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <jamie@shareable.org>) id 1MJX9i-000681-Np
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:25:11 -0400
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:25:07 +0100
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] replace O_SYNC with O_FSYNC
Message-ID: <20090624182507.GL14121@shareable.org>
References: <4A3D3189.1080307@redhat.com> <10665282192-BeMail@laptop>
	<20090620232508.GA29958@shareable.org>
	<7B46D10B-ECDB-4AB7-B9CD-59F7A92886BE@web.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <7B46D10B-ECDB-4AB7-B9CD-59F7A92886BE@web.de>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Andreas =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4rber?= <andreas.faerber@web.de>
Cc: programmingkidx@gmail.com, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Revol <revol@free.fr>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Andreas Färber wrote:
> 
> Am 21.06.2009 um 01:25 schrieb Jamie Lokier:
> 
> >François Revol wrote:
> >>>On 06/20/2009 05:31 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>>>Please [...] use C-style comments instead
> >>>>of C++ style comments. [...]
> >>>
> >>>What do we have against C++ style comments?
> >>
> >>They are not valid in C code :P
> >
> >Wrong.
> >
> >Valid in GNU C for about 14 years, and ANSI/ISO C for about 10  
> >years...
> >
> >I'll be surprised if any C compiler used on any open source operating
> >system, or any major commercial C compiler, doesn't accept them.
> 
> Gladly even ten-year-old GCC 2.95.x supports 'em. But even a recent  
> GCC does not when compiled with -ansi, which is why system headers  
> still mustn't use them.

This is wrong too.  They can be used in system headers.

"gcc -ansi -pedantic -Wall -Werror" accepts C99 comments in system
headers.

It just complains about them in your own code, since you asked it to. :-)

-- Jamie