From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tools 1/6] tools: Refactor "xentoollog" into its own library Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:21:06 +0100 Message-ID: <1434025266.30003.162.camel@citrix.com> References: <1433936188.30003.60.camel@citrix.com> <1433936205-21539-1-git-send-email-ian.campbell@citrix.com> <55796F0F.7040406@citrix.com> <1434022512.30003.150.camel@citrix.com> <557995D30200007800083A10@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <557995D30200007800083A10@mail.emea.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: wei.liu2@citrix.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, Andrew Cooper , ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, roger.pau@citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 13:06 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 11.06.15 at 13:35, wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 12:20 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: > >> As part of the tidyup, we should choose a particular C standard (89, > >> probably) and ensure that the API/ABI complies with `gcc -std=c$VER > >> -pedantic`. This will help to provide a consistent API on other > >> platforms (I seem to recall an effort to port libvchan to windows.) > > > > Shall we just follow what we do for xen/include/public i.e. > > $(CC) -x c -ansi -Wall -Werror > > ? It seems sensible that the two should follow similar rules. > > > > Or if not shall we change the requirements for xen/include/public to > > match? (Jan CCd for comments) > > We certainly shouldn't weaken what we do for the public headers. > How far standard compliance matters for the library interface > headers I really don't know. Actually, since -ansi is the same as -std=c89 I don't think there is a practical difference between the two. Ian.