On Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 1:02 PM Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 9:34 AM Alexei Starovoitov > <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 6:36 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Fix any remaining instances that fail the build in this mode. For selftests, we > > > also need to separate CXXFLAGS from CFLAGS, since adding it to CFLAGS simply > > > would generate a warning when used with g++. > > > > > > This also cherry-picks Andrii's patch to fix the instance in libbpf. Also tested > > > introducing new invalid usage of C99 features. > > > > > > Andrii Nakryiko (1): > > > libbpf: fix non-C89 loop variable declaration in gen_loader.c > > > > > > Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi (5): > > > bpftool: Compile using -std=gnu89 > > > libbpf: Compile using -std=gnu89 > > > selftests/bpf: Fix non-C89 loop variable declaration instances > > > selftests/bpf: Switch to non-unicode character in output > > > selftests/bpf: Compile using -std=gnu89 > > > > Please don't. > > I'd rather go the other way and drop gnu89 from everywhere. > > for (int i = 0 > > is so much cleaner. > > I agree that for (int i) is better, but it's kernel code style which > we followed so far pretty closely for libbpf and bpftool. So I think > this is the right move for bpftool and libbpf. The kernel coding style is not white and black. Certain style preferences are archaic to say the least. It's not the right move to follow it blindly.
