On 18/11/2021 07:09, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
I like the idea of using a specific test balloon for the features that
we want to use but wont this one break the build for anyone doing
'make DEVELOPER=1' because -Wdeclaration-after-statement will error
out.
I think you are missing '?' at the end of the sentence,
sorry yes I am
but the
answer is "no, at least not for me".
# pardon my "make" wrapper; it is to pass DEVELOPER=1 etc. to
# the underlying "make" command.
$ Meta/Make V=1 revision.o
cc -o revision.o -c -MF ./.depend/revision.o.d -MQ revision.o -MMD -MP -Werror -Wall -pedantic -Wpedantic -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wformat-security -Wold-style-definition -Woverflow -Wpointer-arith -Wstrict-prototypes -Wunused -Wvla -fno-common -Wextra -Wmissing-prototypes -Wno-empty-body -Wno-missing-field-initializers -Wno-sign-compare -Wno-unused-parameter -g -O2 -Wall -I. -DHAVE_SYSINFO -DGIT_HOST_CPU="\"x86_64\"" -DUSE_LIBPCRE2 -DHAVE_ALLOCA_H -DUSE_CURL_FOR_IMAP_SEND -DSUPPORTS_SIMPLE_IPC -DSHA1_DC -DSHA1DC_NO_STANDARD_INCLUDES -DSHA1DC_INIT_SAFE_HASH_DEFAULT=0 -DSHA1DC_CUSTOM_INCLUDE_SHA1_C="\"cache.h\"" -DSHA1DC_CUSTOM_INCLUDE_UBC_CHECK_C="\"git-compat-util.h\"" -DSHA256_BLK -DHAVE_PATHS_H -DHAVE_DEV_TTY -DHAVE_CLOCK_GETTIME -DHAVE_CLOCK_MONOTONIC -DHAVE_SYNC_FILE_RANGE -DHAVE_GETDELIM '-DPROCFS_EXECUTABLE_PATH="/proc/self/exe"' -DFREAD_READS_DIRECTORIES -DNO_STRLCPY -DSHELL_PATH='"/bin/sh"' -DPAGER_ENV='"LESS=FRX LV=-c"' revision.c
$ cc --version
cc (Debian 10.3.0-11) 10.3.0
Copyright (C) 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
It would be quite sad if we had to allow decl-after-stmt, only to
allow
stmt;
for (type var = init; ...; ...) {
...;
}
because it should merely be a short-hand for
stmt;
{
type var;
for (var = init; ...; ...) {
...;
}
}
that does not need to allow decl-after-stmt.
Different compilers may behave differently, so it might be an issue
for somebody else, but I am hoping any reasonable compiler would
behave sensibly.
Thanks for raising a potential issue, as others can try it out in
their environment and see if their compilers behave well.
Oh it seems I misunderstood exactly what decl-after-stmt does, thinking
about it your explanation makes sense. I guess that means we have not
had any warning flags set (because no such flags exist?) to protect
against the accidental introduction of the construct that this patch is
testing compiler support for.
Best Wishes
Phillip
