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

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sep 10, 2012, 20:15 UTC
Message-ID: <20120910201545.GC32437@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <004901cd8f81$e2bb20c0$a8316240$@schmitz-digital.de>

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 08:27:07PM +0200, Joachim Schmitz wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> > 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.
> 
> Older version of HP NonStop only have a c89 compiler, newer have a
> -Wc99lite switch to that, which enables some C99 features and the
> latest additionally have a c99 compiler. There's no switch to cripple
> something, it is just a fact that older systems don't have c99 or only
> limited support for it. A whole series of machines (which is still in
> use!) cannot get upgraded to anything better than c89.

If you are using a compiler switch to emulate a real environment, then my comments above do not apply. I was speaking against standard pedantry for its own sake, which I have no interest in.

However, do be careful that your emulated environment (i.e., recent NonStop but using compiler flags to pretend you are the older version) is accurate, and not introducing new portability annoyances that do not truly exist on the old system. In fact, I might go so far as to say if you cannot actually come up with an instance of the older platform to test it, it might not even be worth our time to care about.

-Peff