On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 09:28:32AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 5:20 AM Lukas Wunner <lukas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Variable declarations in for-loops is the only one I can think of. I > > > think that would clean up some code (and some macros), but might not > > > be compelling on its own. > > > > Anonymous structs/unions. I used to have a use case for that in > > struct efi_dev_path in include/linux/efi.h, but Ard Biesheuvel > > refactored it in a gnu89-compatible way for v5.7 with db8952e7094f. > > We use anonymous structs/unions extensively and all over the place already. Yes, my apologies, I mixed things up. Back in 2016 when I authored 46cd4b75cd0e, what I wanted to do was include an unnamed "struct efi_generic_dev_path;" in struct efi_dev_path: struct efi_dev_path { struct efi_generic_dev_path; union { struct { u32 hid; u32 uid; } acpi; struct { u8 fn; u8 dev; } pci; }; } __attribute ((packed)); The alternative is to copy-paste the elements of struct efi_dev_path or to give it a name such as "header" (which is what db8952e7094f subsequently did). Both options seemed inelegant to me. However it turns out this feature requires -fms-extensions. It's not part of -std=gnu11. So coming back to topic, yes there doesn't seem to be too much to be gained from moving to -std=gnu11 aside from variable declarations in for-loops. (And it really has to be -std=gnu11 because -std=c11 fails to compile.) Thanks, Lukas