git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [PATCH] revision: use C99 declaration of variable in for() loop

From
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Date
Nov 17, 2021, 12:39 UTC
Message-ID
<211117.86bl2j6j6z.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<61518213-9ce8-00d2-efd9-7f2091c574c4@gmail.com>
On Wed, Nov 17 2021, Phillip Wood wrote:
Show 28 quoted lines
> Hi Junio
>
> On 15/11/2021 06:27, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> There are certain C99 features that might be nice to use in our code
>> base, but we've hesitated to do so in order to avoid breaking
>> compatibility with older compilers. But we don't actually know if
>> people are even using pre-C99 compilers these days.
>> One way to figure that out is to introduce a very small use of a
>> feature, and see if anybody complains, and we've done so to probe
>> the portability for a few features like "trailing comma in enum
>> declaration", "designated initializer for struct", and "designated
>> initializer for array".  A few years ago, we tried to use a handy
>>      for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
>> 	use(i);
>> to introduce a new variable valid only in the loop, but found that
>> some compilers we cared about didn't like it back then.  Two years
>> is a long-enough time, so let's try it agin.
>> If this patch can survive a few releases without complaint, then we
>> can feel more confident that variable declaration in for() loop is
>> supported by the compilers our user base use.  And if we do get
>> complaints, then we'll have gained some data and we can easily
>> revert this patch.
>
> I like the idea of using a specific test balloon for the features that
> we want to use but wont this one break the build for anyone doing
> 'make DEVELOPER=1' because -Wdeclaration-after-statement will error
> out. I think we could wrap the loop in gcc's warning pragmas to avoid
> that.
Good point.

Overall something that brings us to the end-state 765dc168882 (git-compat-util: always enable variadic macros, 2021-01-28) brought us to is probably better, i.e. something you can work around by defining or undefining a macro via a Makefile parameter, instead of needing to patch git's sources.

Previous: Phillip WoodNext: SZEDER Gábor
Message 16 of 22 in “MyFirstContribution.txt: fix undeclared variable i in sample code”
  1. MyFirstContribution.txt: fix undeclared variable i in sample codeSaksham Mittal, Nov 13, 2021
  2. Johannes AltmanningerNov 13, 2021
  3. Saksham MittalNov 13, 2021
  4. Junio C HamanoNov 14, 2021
  5. Is 'for (int i = [...]' bad for C STD compliance reasons? (was: [PATCH] MyFirstContribution.txt: fix undeclared variable i in sample code)Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, Nov 14, 2021
  6. Junio C HamanoNov 14, 2021
  7. Ævar Arnfjörð BjarmasonNov 14, 2021
  8. Carlo ArenasNov 14, 2021
  9. brian m. carlsonNov 14, 2021
  10. Carlo ArenasNov 14, 2021
  11. revision: use C99 declaration of variable in for() loopJunio C Hamano, Nov 15, 2021
  12. Martin ÅgrenNov 15, 2021
  13. Junio C HamanoNov 16, 2021
  14. brian m. carlsonNov 15, 2021
  15. Phillip WoodNov 17, 2021
  16. Ævar Arnfjörð BjarmasonNov 17, 2021
  17. SZEDER GáborNov 17, 2021
  18. Junio C HamanoNov 18, 2021
  19. Phillip WoodDec 7, 2021
  20. Junio C HamanoDec 7, 2021
  21. Removing -Wdeclaration-after-statement (was: [PATCH] revision: use C99 declaration of variable in for() loop)Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, Dec 8, 2021
  22. Junio C HamanoDec 8, 2021

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.