| Message ID | 20241117013149.576671-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | C23 compatibility | expand |
"brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes: > Most of our code works fine in C23, but there are some new additions to > the standard that conflict with either our struct tags or functions. > With this series, the code compiles and passes the testsuite with > -std=c23 on GCC 14.2.0. > > brian m. carlson (2): > index-pack: rename struct thread_local > reflog: rename unreachable > > builtin/index-pack.c | 10 +++++----- > reflog.c | 4 ++-- > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) Thank you for the fast response! It both works and the fixes look correct. For the series: Tested-by: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> Reviewed-by: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 01:31:47AM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > Most of our code works fine in C23, but there are some new additions to > the standard that conflict with either our struct tags or functions. > With this series, the code compiles and passes the testsuite with > -std=c23 on GCC 14.2.0. > > brian m. carlson (2): > index-pack: rename struct thread_local > reflog: rename unreachable > > builtin/index-pack.c | 10 +++++----- > reflog.c | 4 ++-- > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) Both of the patches look obviously good to me. I was a bit surprised that this is required in the first place as I thought we were passing `-std=gnu99` to our compilers, but that is not the case with our current Makefile. So I must have been misremembering. Thanks! Patrick
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 08:45:03AM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > Both of the patches look obviously good to me. I was a bit surprised > that this is required in the first place as I thought we were passing > `-std=gnu99` to our compilers, but that is not the case with our current > Makefile. So I must have been misremembering. We do for DEVELOPER=1 mode, but it wouldn't make sense to pass something unportable like "gnu99" for the general case. -Peff
On 2024-11-18 at 07:45:03, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > Both of the patches look obviously good to me. I was a bit surprised > that this is required in the first place as I thought we were passing > `-std=gnu99` to our compilers, but that is not the case with our current > Makefile. So I must have been misremembering. We can't do that because FreeBSD's system headers require C11 and won't work with `-std=gnu99`, in addition to the general unportability of that construct as mentioned by Peff. There's a comment to that effect in `config.mak.dev`. I'm pleased you found the patches acceptable, though.