On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 05:15:27PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > On 2023-04-15 16:47:03+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 09, 2023 at 11:28:46AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > 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 > > Thanks! > > I noticed today that I did not adapt the comments in arch-s390.h; > because the start() comments were already correct. > > But the last line of arch-s390.h still contains a C99 comment. ah, I must have missed it because I checked using git grep //. > Do you want me to send a patch or could you just push one? > (Or fold it into my patch) I'll do it and force-push. Thanks for checking and notifying me! Cheers, Willy
