Hi Junio, On Mon, 22 Nov 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Carlo Arenas <carenas@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > >> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 9:27 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>> I had an impression that it was claimed that without this, the other > >>> weatherbaloon for "for (type var=..." would not fly in some of the > >>> jobs we have at CI? > >> > >> It wouldn't if we have a CI job that tests with gcc < 5 but the last > >> version of that job died with travis-ci.org > > > > I was wondering how Dscho's test was not failing, and that is an > > easy answer to that question ;-) > > > > If we wanted to resurrect that CI job, we can always add it in the > > CI definition anyway, so I am OK with that, too. > > But if we were to do so, perhaps we'd want something like what I > gave at https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqy25lwa86.fsf@gitster.g/ in > its place to avoid confusing people. That sounds like a good course of action to me. Please note that the MSVC-related adjustment of the `FLEX_ARRAY` block is still needed, I think. Ciao, Dscho P.S.: In case it was not clear yet, I am in favor of going forward with the C99 weather balloon. We should try to move in that direction, slowly and gently, as is our custom.
