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

> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:38:58PM +0200, Joachim Schmitz wrote:
>
>>> More importantly, though, is it actually portable? I thought it was
>>> added in C99, and we try to stick to C89 to support older compilers
>>> and systems. My copy of C99 is vague (it says only that the "bool"
>>> macro was added via stdbool.h in C99, but nothing about the "true"
>>> and "false" macros), and I don't have a copy of C89 handy.
>>> Wikipedia does claim the header wasn't standardized at all until
>>> C99:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_standard_library
>>
>> Indeed stdbool is not part of C89, but inline isn't either and used
>> extensively in git (could possible be defined away),
>
> You can define INLINE in the Makefile to disable it (or set it to
> something more appropriate for your system).

>> 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.

> My "we stick to C89" is a little bit of a lie. We do not care about
> specific standards. We do care about running everywhere on reasonable
> systems. So something that is C99 might be OK if realistically
> everybody has it. And something that is POSIX is not automatically OK
> if there are many real-world systems that do not have it.
>
> Since there is no written standard, there tends to be an organic ebb
> and flow in which features we use. Somebody will use a feature that
> is not portable because it's useful to them, and then somebody whose
> system will no longer build git will complain, and then we'll fix it
> and move on. As reviewers, we try to anticipate those breakages and
> stop them early (especially if they are ones we have seen before and
> know are a problem), but we do not always get it right. And sometimes
> it is even time to revisit old decisions (the line you mentioned is 2
> years old, and nobody has complained; maybe all of the old systems
> have become obsolete, and we no longer need to care about constant
> initializers).
>
> Getting back to the patch at hand, it may be that stdbool is
> practically available everywhere. Or that we could trivially emulate
> it by defining a "true" macro in this case. But it is also important
> to consider whether that complexity is worth it. This would be the
> first and only spot in git to use "true". Why bother?
>
> -Peff