On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 12:36:34PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > > > I do wonder if at some point we should revisit our "do not use any > > C99-isms" philosophy. It was very good advice in 2005. I don't know how > > good it is over 8 years later (it seems like even ancient systems should > > be able to get gcc compiled as a last resort, but maybe there really are > > people for whom that is a burden). > > Well, we are not kernel where being able to precisely control > generated machine code matters and enforcement of acceptable > compiler versions to achieve that goal is warranted, so I'd prefer > to avoid anything that tells the users "go get a newer gcc".
Sorry, I was not very clear about what I said. I do not think "go get a newer gcc" is a good thing to be telling people. But I wonder: a. if there are actually people on systems that have pre-c99 compilers in 2013 b. if there are, do they actually _use_ the ancient system compiler, and not just install gcc as the first step anyway? In other words, I am questioning whether we would have to tell anybody "go install gcc" these days. I'm not sure of the best way to answer that question, though. > There are certain things outside C89 that would make our code easier > to read and maintain (e.g. named member initialization of > struct/union, cf. ANSI C99 s6.7.9, just to name one) that I would > love to be able to use in our codebase, but being able to leave an > extra comma at the list of enums is very low on that list. Yes, I can live without trailing commas. I was musing more on the general issue (of course, we don't _have_ to take C99 as a whole, and can pick and choose features that even pre-C99 compilers got right, but I was wondering mainly when it would be time to say C99 is "old enough" that everybody supports it). -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html