Hi Thomas, On Sun, Apr 09, 2023 at 11:28:46AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 09:54:46PM +0000, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > This series replaces the C99 compatibility patch. (See v1 link below). > > After the discussion about support C99 and/or GNU89 I came to the > > conclusion supporting straight C89 is not very hard. > > > > Instead of validating both C99 and GNU89 in some awkward way only for > > somebody requesting true C89 support let's just do it this way. > > > > Feel free to squash all the comment syntax patches together if you > > prefer. > > I gave it some thought, at first considering that going lower than GNU89 > was possibly not very useful, but given that the changes are very small > in the end (mostly comments formating), I think that you're right. The > cost of reaching this level of portability is basically zero once the > patch is applied so I think it's worth doing it now. However I think I > will indeed squash all the comments patch together as you suggest. I've now squashed the ones about comments together, fixed the declaration inside the for statement in nolibc-test and tested with gcc 4.7 & 4.8 and confirmed it works as expected. I've queued it there for now: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wtarreau/nolibc.git/log/?h=20230415-nolibc-updates-4a Thank you! Willy
