On 2021-11-17 at 03:01:57, Jeff King wrote: > Yes, but I'm not at all worried about breaking our CI. That's just a > patch away from fixing. I'm much more worried about confused users > building from source, because helping them is more difficult to scale. That's one of the reasons I had proposed the current patch, because it pukes in a very noticeable way with directives on where to look to continue. Just using C99 features means that Git breaks in a very subtle way where the user compiling may not be familiar with C and may not know how to fix it otherwise. For example, my previous employer ships Git, but many of the folks who are doing the package updates are not C programmers. > My thinking was that breaking older compilers was preferable to breaking > non-gnu ones, because at least old ones go away eventually. But your > other email makes me wonder if those non-GNU ones may already be > overriding CFLAGS. Our only problem platform, as far as I can tell, is RHEL/CentOS 7. That uses GCC 4.8, and even Ubuntu 18.04 ships with GCC 7. > Still, if we can come up with a solution that breaks neither (with some > light auto-detection or heuristics in the Makefile), that could be the > best of both worlds. I can move COMPILER_FEATURES out of config.mak.dev and into Makefile so that we can make use of it. We'll need to depend on GCC 6 for this because we lack a way to distinguish 5.1 (which should work) from 5.0 (which will not). -- brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them) Toronto, Ontario, CA
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
