I specifically didn't use #pragma GCC diagnostic push in order to avoid this exact kind of discussion...
> On Jan 16, 2019, at 4:46 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > I'm sorry but I'm confused. The patch is as specific as you can get. It just > adds the minimal option and JUST for filters and JUST if libxml2 is part of > the build. Anything else seems more disruptive than that. So why are the more > disruptive changes preferred? I'm just trying to understand the logic there. > >> On Jan 16, 2019, at 4:24 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: >> >> In case my opinion wasn't clear, I'm +1 to any of the proposed choices, >> but I'm also partial to choice 2 or 1, at least add -Wno-error=comment >> in maintainer mode, or simply switch to -std=c99 presuming that more >> and more of the system headers follow c99 syntax over time. >> And revert the tweak of modules/filters/config.m4. >> >> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 3:39 AM Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group >> <ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com> wrote: >> >> C2 General >> >> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> > Von: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> >> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Januar 2019 10:00 >> > An: dev@httpd.apache.org >> > Betreff: Re: svn commit: r1850745 - >> > /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/filters/config.m4 >> > >> > >> > >> > > Am 16.01.2019 um 03:33 schrieb William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe- >> > clan.net>: >> > > >> > > 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 -DAP_DEBUG >> > > >> >> > > >> 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 the >> > > customary build, leave that (at least on httpd 2.4) as -std=c89. I >> > think we should >> > > 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, >> > always >> > > accept all -std=c99 behaviors (fix any legacy pre-c99 issues that >> > may arise.) >> > > All the system headers using c99 (or earlier) semantics should >> > behave well. >> > > >> > > 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 can >> > > 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. >> > >> > My pov: >> > - as long as 2.4.x is our only release branch, I'd like trunk maintainer >> > mode to stay compatible >> > - I would like to switch to c99 as soon as 2.6.0 is out >> > - The CPPFLAGS switch for the module only seems to be the least >> > intrusive >> >> Sounds sensible. >> >> Regards >> >> Rüdiger >
