Re: [PATCH v2] compat/bswap.h: simplify MSVC endianness detection

> "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:
>
> > On 2020-11-10 at 00:31:27, Jeff King wrote:
> >> On Sun, Nov 08, 2020 at 11:57:41AM +0200, Daniel Gurney wrote:
> >>
> >> > Modern MSVC or Windows versions don't support big-endian, so it's
> >> > unnecessary to consider architectures when using it.
> >>
> >> This made me wonder if we support any non-modern versions (which would
> >> be negatively impacted).
> >
> > I'm pretty sure we don't.  As I said, we're using several C99 features
> > and that version precedes the C99 standard (and 1999).
> >
> >> From the earlier thread at [1], it sounds like probably not, but I
> >> wonder if we can offer a stronger argument there (or just define
> >> "modern" a little more clearly).
> >
> > According to Wikipedia[0]:
> >
> >   Visual C++ 2013 [12.0] finally added support for various C99 features
> >   in its C mode (including designated initializers, compound literals,
> >   and the _Bool type), though it was still not complete. Visual C++ 2015
> >   further improved the C99 support, with full support of the C99
> >   Standard Library, except for features that require C99 language
> >   features not yet supported by the compiler.
> >
> > The version mentioned that supported MIPS, Alpha, and m68k was Visual
> > C++ 2.0 RISC Edition.  While Wikipedia doesn't mention its release date,
> > its successor, Visual C++ 4.0, was released in 1995.  The m68k version
> > ran on Macs using those processors, and Apple abandoned m68k for PowerPC
> > in 1994[1].
>
> So,
>
> 	The only versions of MSVC that support big-endian are too
> 	ancient and do not understand some C99 features we use in
> 	our codebase, so it is unnecessary...
>
> would be sufficient?
>
> > I'm entirely comfortable with requiring that people use a compiler and
> > operating system newer than 25 years old to compile Git correctly.  As
> > I've said or implied in previous threads, I'm also fine requiring C99
> > (vendors having had over two decades to implement it) and only
> > supporting OSes with vendor security support, although obviously these
> > latter two items are much more controversial.
>
> Maybe controversial, but worth at least laying the ground rules
> ahead of time?
>
> Do we have any specific feature we avoid only due to portability
> concerns?  Declaring an identifier in the first part of for() is the
> only thing that comes to my mind, but there may be others.  I think
> we should consider how well each individual feature is supported by
> systems we care about as we feel the need.