On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 8:37 AM Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:

> > On Jan 15, 2019, at 9:21 AM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 9:14 AM Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jan 9, 2019, at 7:41 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Jim,
> >>
> >> Does CFLAGS -std=c99 solve your issue? It seems to work here. I'm
> building on the Fedora 29, largely frozen end-of-july. Reverting the patch
> below and toggling -std=c89 to -std=c99 in configure.in building all but
> two modules from trunk is building clean, and results in this command for
> error checking;
> >> /usr/lib64/apr-1/build/libtool --silent --mode=compile gcc  -pthread
> -std=c99 -Werror -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
> -Wmissing-declarations -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wpointer-arith
> -Wformat -Wformat-security -Wunused     -DLINUX -D_REENTRANT -D_GNU_SOURCE
> >>
> >> Is it reasonable to enforce c99 limitations at this late date? I'm not
> suggesting we change the general builds from c89 in the 2.4 branch, but
> that is something we might want to consider for trunk, 20 years out.
> >>
> >>
> >> Personally, I'd be fine allowing c99 in both 2.4 and trunk, considering
> that we are in 2019 already :)
> >>
> >> Any platform that lacks a c99 compatible CC likely doesn't build anyway.
> >
> > As a binary distributor, even though a C99 compiler may be available
> > on platform X, it might not be in use.  Wouldn't love seeing it in
> > 2.4.
> I'm not proposing a change for 2.4... but I wouldn't oppose it either :)
> Allowing c99 for trunk would make backporting to 2.4 (which would stay
> c89) possibly more difficult. This is either a good thing or a bad thing.
> So far, however, iirc we have not had any issues sticking with c89 and I
> don't think the above would warrant such a change. IMO of course.

I might not have been clear, above. I'm not suggesting changing things for
customary build, leave that (at least on httpd 2.4) as -std=c89. I think we
have this discussion of when we will begin accepting c99 source patches, but
that isn't the immediate problem you've tripped over.

I see several options;

  Only for maintainer mode, where we are strictly handling all errors,
  accept all -std=c99 behaviors (fix any legacy pre-c99 issues that may
  All the system headers using c99 (or earlier) semantics should behave

  Or, for maintainer mode, always relax the comments restriction only so we
  have -std=c89 -Werror -Wall -Wno-error=comment (but not modified in the
  modules/filters/config.m4 where it isn't apparent who toggled this.) You
  almost call this c99-lite which solves one c99'ism in newer system headers
  without allowing all the c99'isms in system headers.

  Or, staying closest to the proposed patch, add -Wno-error=comment only
  to mod_proxy_html's CPPFLAGS, and stop messing with the rest of the
  compilation for a single module.

In every case, I'm expecting we still adhere to c89, especially in httpd-2.4
branch. A typical compilation (non-maintainer-mode) should catch most
of those irregularities.

Reply via email to