RE: [PATCH] daemon: restore getpeername(0,...) use

> From: Jeff King [mailto:peff@peff.net]
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 7:59 PM
> To: Joachim Schmitz
> Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] daemon: restore getpeername(0,...) use
> 
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 07:26:26PM +0200, Joachim Schmitz wrote:
> 
> > >>as are non-const array intializers, e.g.:
> > >>
> > >>               const char *args[] = { editor, path, NULL };
> > >>                                              ^
> > >>".../git/editor.c", line 39: error(122): expression must have a
> > >>constant value
> > >>
> > >>So git source is not plain C89 code (anymore?)
> > >
> > >I remember we excised a whole bunch of non-constant initializers at
> > >some point because somebody's compiler was complaining. But I suppose
> > >this one has slipped back in, because non-constant initializers are
> > >so damn useful. And nobody has complained, which I imagine means
> > >nobody has bothered building lately on those older systems that
> > >complained.
> >
> > OK, record my complaint then ;-)
> 
> Oops, did I say "complained"? I meant "sent patches". Hint, hint. :)

> > At least some older release of HP NonStop only have C89 and are still in use
> >
> > And tying to compile in plain C89 mode revealed several other
> > problems too (e.g. size_t seems not to be typedef'd?)
> 
> I think it is a mistake to set -std=c89 (or whatever similar option your
> compiler supports). Like I said, we are not interested in being strictly
> C89-compliant. We are interested in working on real-world systems.
> 
> If your compiler complains in the default mode (or when it is given some
> reasonable practical settings), then that's something worth fixing. But
> if your compiler is perfectly capable of compiling git, but you choose
> to cripple it by telling it to be pedantic about a standard, then that
> is not git's problem at all.