SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > With that patch issues like this could be caught earlier, while they > are only in 'pu' but not yet in 'next'. But do we really want to do > that, is that the right tradeoff? I am sort of in favor of having at least one build with an older compiler without "-std=c99", like the set-up you are proposing. I got an impression from an earlier message that Jonathan's preference is the opposite. I'd prefer to hear opinions from others, too. The main reason why we accept other new features like trailing comma in enum def and designated initializers while rejecting for loop init is because there apparently are those who build Git with compilers that accept & reject these combinations of features and who care enough to report compilation failure from their build. And apparently gcc4.8 can serve as a representative "old" compiler, so...
