Happy to do so! I build new versions of git on a few systems as they roll out, and you'll find many of my (not that many) patches involve breakage on this particularly old system. I'm sure one day a big change will break git for good there, but in the meantime I'll do what I can to keep it going. :-) -Alejandro On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 3:33 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 05 2022, Aleajndro R Sedeño wrote: > > > From: Alejandro R. Sedeño <asedeno@xxxxxxx> > > > > From: https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/changes.html > > > >> The deprecated attribute now takes an optional string argument, for > >> example, __attribute__((deprecated("text string"))), that will be > >> printed together with the deprecation warning. > > > > While GCC 4.5 is already 12 years old, git checks for even older > > versions in places. Let's not needlessly break older compilers when > > a small and simple fix is readily available. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alejandro R. Sedeño <asedeno@xxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Alejandro R Sedeño <asedeno@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > git-compat-util.h | 5 ++++- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/git-compat-util.h b/git-compat-util.h > > index b90b64718e..045b47f83a 100644 > > --- a/git-compat-util.h > > +++ b/git-compat-util.h > > @@ -189,9 +189,12 @@ struct strbuf; > > #define _NETBSD_SOURCE 1 > > #define _SGI_SOURCE 1 > > > > -#if defined(__GNUC__) > > +#if GIT_GNUC_PREREQ(4, 5) > > #define UNUSED __attribute__((unused)) \ > > __attribute__((deprecated ("parameter declared as UNUSED"))) > > +#elif defined(__GNUC__) > > +#define UNUSED __attribute__((unused)) \ > > + __attribute__((deprecated)) > > #else > > #define UNUSED > > #endif > > This LGTM, thanks a lot for that fix & fixing this (minor) breakage of > mine. > > I did test on an older GCC myself, and then (in lieu of logging into an > ancient system I have access to) scoured the release notes of gcc, and > discovered that "deprecated" was older than anything we cared about. > > But I obviously missed that while the feature had been there for a > longer time, it didn't take this parameter until GCC 4.5, sorry!
