| Message ID | cover-0.2-00000000000-20210412T105422Z-avarab@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | C99: harder dependency on variadic macros | expand |
On 12/04/21 18.02, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > But I'm submitting this because of brian m. carlson's note[3] about > wanting to submit more general patches for declaring a hard dependency > on all of C99. I think we should bump standard requirement to C99, right?
On Mon, Apr 12 2021, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: > On 12/04/21 18.02, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> But I'm submitting this because of brian m. carlson's note[3] about >> wanting to submit more general patches for declaring a hard dependency >> on all of C99. > > I think we should bump standard requirement to C99, right? I think that's worth discussing, but isn't the topic of this more narrow change. As noted in http://lore.kernel.org/git/87wnt8eai1.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com if we simply do that some of our MSVC CI will start failing. I don't know what other compilers we need to support that may support our current subset of C99 features, but not the full set, or if e.g. the CI can simply have its MSVC compiler version bumped.
On 2021-04-12 at 12:41:35, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 12 2021, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: > > > On 12/04/21 18.02, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> But I'm submitting this because of brian m. carlson's note[3] about > >> wanting to submit more general patches for declaring a hard dependency > >> on all of C99. > > > > I think we should bump standard requirement to C99, right? > > I think that's worth discussing, but isn't the topic of this more narrow > change. I'm in favor of this more narrow change as well. Junio's statement that packages may not have had time to update is true, but I also just looked at a variety of packages that run on Linux, FreeBSD, and NetBSD (and, since it's pkgsrc, Solaris), and they're all updated. Usually most open source OS vendors are reasonably prompt about updating their Git versions, at least in the bleeding edge repositories. If this works on Windows, it will also work on Unix, because POSIX has required C99 support since the 2001 revision, and __VA_ARGS__ is C99. Unix systems are not the thing preventing us from enabling C99 support (or any subset of it) in any meaningful sense. > As noted in > http://lore.kernel.org/git/87wnt8eai1.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com if we > simply do that some of our MSVC CI will start failing. > > I don't know what other compilers we need to support that may support > our current subset of C99 features, but not the full set, or if e.g. the > CI can simply have its MSVC compiler version bumped. I'm looking at fixing our CI before I send in my series. My series, when it comes in, will have a green CI status because I do want to be sure that we're providing a supported environment for MSVC wherever that's possible.
"brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes: > If this works on Windows, it will also work on Unix, because POSIX has > required C99 support since the 2001 revision, and __VA_ARGS__ is C99. > Unix systems are not the thing preventing us from enabling C99 support > (or any subset of it) in any meaningful sense. Yeah, among the list (semi-)regulars, the only ones that may likely to be broken is the NonStop folks. Hopefully they are aware of this discussion? https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqeeffe669.fsf@gitster.g/