Re: [Python-Dev] c99 comments in the 2.6 code base?
Fredrik Lundh wrote: http://drj11.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/python-and-bragging-about-c89/ mentions that Objects/frameobject.c contains a C99-style comment, which means that Python 2.6 won't build on AIX. shouldn't we use a suitable gcc option for the buildbots to prevent that from happening? Ouch! This shouldn't have happend. I'm going to discuss the matter on #python-dev. Perhaps --with-pydebug could add more restrict error checking to the Makefile like -std=c89 -pedantic -Werror Christian ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] c99 comments in the 2.6 code base?
Christian Heimes lists at cheimes.de writes: Ouch! This shouldn't have happend. I'm going to discuss the matter on #python-dev. Perhaps --with-pydebug could add more restrict error checking to the Makefile like -std=c89 -pedantic -Werror As discussed on python-dev, I think it should also be added in release mode. Some developers probably never compile in debug mode (*), and compiling in release mode is useful when you want to do performance tuning. (*) not thinking of anyone in particular ! Regards Antoine. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] c99 comments in the 2.6 code base?
Fredrik Lundh wrote: http://drj11.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/python-and-bragging-about-c89/ I've found several more occasions of // comments and one usage of inline. We *really* should have some way to compile Python with C89 checks Python doesn't compile with the -pedantic option but it compiles with -std=c89 -Werror after I've applied some patches. I've added a new make command to add extra checks. Maybe the build bots could use make c89 instead of make to build Python? c89: $(MAKE) CFLAGS=$(CFLAGS) -std=c89 -Werror Christian ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] c99 comments in the 2.6 code base?
Martin v. Löwis wrote: shouldn't we use a suitable gcc option for the buildbots to prevent that from happening? Which one specifically? I suggest we add -std=c89 to CFLAGS. We could also add a new target called buildbot to the Makefile that appends -std=c89 -Werror to CFLAGS. I don't think it's wise to add -Werror to the standard build target. However a new build target with extra checks should help to detect errors much sooner. Christian ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] c99 comments in the 2.6 code base?
shouldn't we use a suitable gcc option for the buildbots to prevent that from happening? Which one specifically? I suggest we add -std=c89 to CFLAGS. That needs thorough testing, in particular across many old Linux distributions. It might be that some sets of Linux header files rely on GNU C extensions, without using the __extension__ keyword. We could also add a new target called buildbot to the Makefile that appends -std=c89 -Werror to CFLAGS. I don't think it's wise to add -Werror to the standard build target. However a new build target with extra checks should help to detect errors much sooner. That would need to go along with a policy that Python must never cause GCC to emit any warnings. Regards, Martin ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] c99 comments in the 2.6 code base?
shouldn't we use a suitable gcc option for the buildbots to prevent that from happening? Which one specifically? I suggest we add -std=c89 to CFLAGS. Martin That needs thorough testing, in particular across many old Linux Martin distributions. It might be that some sets of Linux header files Martin rely on GNU C extensions, without using the __extension__ Martin keyword. Surely we don't need to be that careful with the buildbots do we? If anything, I think it would be a good idea to be more strict for them than the default. Skip ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
