On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 07:43:09AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > - There were occasional cases where we wished if variable-length
> >arrays, flexible array members and variadic macros were available
> >in our codebase during the course of this project. We would
> >probably want to
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:11:33AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano writes:
>
> > Oh, absolutely.
> >
> > Here is another possible test balloon, that may actually be useful
> > as an example. I think there is a topic in flight that touches this
> > array,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
> On Fri, Jul 14 2017, Junio C. Hamano jotted:
>
>> Junio C Hamano writes:
>>
>> - This may be showing I am not just old fashioned but also am
>>ignorant, but I do not see much point in using the following in
>>our
On Fri, Jul 14 2017, Junio C. Hamano jotted:
> Junio C Hamano writes:
>
> - This may be showing I am not just old fashioned but also am
>ignorant, but I do not see much point in using the following in
>our codebase (iow, I am not aware of places in the existing code
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Do we need to have a check to detect a buggy compiler that takes the
> syntax but produces an incorrectly initialized array? I could add a
> test to ensure that HEADER comes out BOLD, etc. (or we may already
> have such a test) and then reorder these
Jeff King writes:
>> +static int clean_use_color = -1;
>> +static char clean_colors[][COLOR_MAXLEN] = {
>> +[CLEAN_COLOR_RESET] = GIT_COLOR_RESET,
>> +[CLEAN_COLOR_PLAIN] = GIT_COLOR_NORMAL,
>> +[CLEAN_COLOR_PROMPT] = GIT_COLOR_BOLD_BLUE,
>> +[CLEAN_COLOR_HEADER] =
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:11:33AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> As to other things that we currently not allow in our codebase that
> newer compilers can grok, here is what *I* think. It is *not* meant
> to be an exhaustive "what's new in C99 that is not in C89? what is
> the final verdict on
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> - I prefer to keep decl-after-statement out of our codebase. I
>view it as a big plus in code-readability to be able to see a
>complete list of variables that will be used in a block upfront
>before
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Oh, absolutely.
>
> Here is another possible test balloon, that may actually be useful
> as an example. I think there is a topic in flight that touches this
> array, unfortunately, so I probably would find another one that is
> more stable for a real
Am 12.07.2017 um 21:12 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason:
I think in the context of this desire Johannes Sixt's "Actually, I'm
serious [about let's compile with c++]"[1] should be given some more
consideration.
Thank you for your support.
I've just compiled Git with it and it passes all tests.
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
> On Tue, Jul 11 2017, Junio C. Hamano jotted:
>
>> Just so that people do not misunderstand, it is not our goal to
>> declare that now you need a fully C99 compiler to build Git.
>> ...
>
> I think in the context of this desire Johannes Sixt's
On Tue, Jul 11 2017, Junio C. Hamano jotted:
> Ben Peart writes:
>
>>> If this patch can survive a few releases without complaint,
>>> then we can feel more confident that designated initializers
>>> are widely supported by our user base. It also is an
>>> indication that
Am 12.07.2017 um 03:26 schrieb brian m. carlson:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 07:24:07AM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
I can revive the patches if there is interest.
I'd be interested in at least a pointer to them if you have one. I
think it might allow us to take advantage of desirable features
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 07:24:07AM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Am 11.07.2017 um 02:05 schrieb brian m. carlson:
> > I have tried compiling Git with a C++ compiler, so that I could test
> > whether that was a viable alternative for MSVC in case its C++ mode
> > supported features its C mode did
Ben Peart writes:
>> If this patch can survive a few releases without complaint,
>> then we can feel more confident that designated initializers
>> are widely supported by our user base. It also is an
>> indication that other C99 features may be supported, but not
>> a
Am 11.07.2017 um 02:05 schrieb brian m. carlson:
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:57:40PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
It's a pity, though, that you do not suggest something even more useful,
such as C++14.
I have tried compiling Git with a C++ compiler, so that I could test
whether that was a
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:57:57AM -0400, Ben Peart wrote:
> Correct. MSVC also supports designated initializers but does not fully
> support C99.
Precision: *recent versions* of MSVC support designated initializer.
2013 introduced them, but there were bugs until 2015, see e.g.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:11:35PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> > I am not sure what negative impact you think the macro-ness would
> > have to the validity of the result from this test balloon. An old
> > compiler that does not understand designated initializer syntax
> > would fail to compile
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 05:07:43PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:05 PM, brian m. carlson
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:57:40PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> >> It's a pity, though, that you do not suggest something even more
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:05 PM, brian m. carlson
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:57:40PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
>> It's a pity, though, that you do not suggest something even more useful,
>> such as C++14.
>
> I have tried compiling Git with a C++ compiler,
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:57:40PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> It's a pity, though, that you do not suggest something even more useful,
> such as C++14.
I have tried compiling Git with a C++ compiler, so that I could test
whether that was a viable alternative for MSVC in case its C++ mode
On 07/10, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 10:05:49AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> > René Scharfe writes:
> >
> > > I wonder when we can begin to target C99 in git's source, though. :)
> >
> > Let's get the ball rolling by starting to use some of the useful
> >
Stefan Beller writes:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> Credit goes to Brandon for spotting it, but the introduction of
> "trailing comma at the end of enum definition is allowed in c99"
> is e1327023ea (grep: refactor the
Johannes Sixt writes:
>> I am not sure what negative impact you think the macro-ness would
>> have to the validity of the result from this test balloon. An old
>> compiler that does not understand designated initializer syntax
>> would fail to compile both the same way, no?
>>
>>
Am 10.07.2017 um 22:38 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
Johannes Sixt writes:
It's a pity, though, that you do not suggest something even more
useful, such as C++14.
I cannot tell if this part is tongue-in-cheek (especially the "++"),
so I will ignore it to avoid wasting time.
Johannes Sixt writes:
> It's a pity, though, that you do not suggest something even more
> useful, such as C++14.
I cannot tell if this part is tongue-in-cheek (especially the "++"),
so I will ignore it to avoid wasting time.
>> Subject: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated
Am 10.07.2017 um 09:03 schrieb Jeff King:
On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 10:05:49AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
René Scharfe writes:
I wonder when we can begin to target C99 in git's source, though. :)
Let's get the ball rolling...
Good to know that you do not resist moving to a
On 7/10/2017 12:04 PM, Jeff King wrote:
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:57:57AM -0400, Ben Peart wrote:
If this patch can survive a few releases without complaint,
then we can feel more confident that designated initializers
are widely supported by our user base. It also is an
indication that
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
>>> That way, we will see if there are people who need pre-C99 soon
>>> enough, and we won't have to scramble reverting too many changes
>>> when it happens.
>>
>> Neat idea. Something
On Jul 10 2017, Jeff King wrote:
> If this patch can survive a few releases without complaint,
> then we can feel more confident that designated initializers
> are widely supported by our user base. It also is an
> indication that other C99 features may be supported, but not
> a
Jeff King writes:
>> That way, we will see if there are people who need pre-C99 soon
>> enough, and we won't have to scramble reverting too many changes
>> when it happens.
>
> Neat idea. Something like this?
Yes, your log message said everything I wanted to say, including
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:57:57AM -0400, Ben Peart wrote:
> > If this patch can survive a few releases without complaint,
> > then we can feel more confident that designated initializers
> > are widely supported by our user base. It also is an
> > indication that other C99 features may be
On 7/10/2017 3:03 AM, Jeff King wrote:
On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 10:05:49AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
René Scharfe writes:
I wonder when we can begin to target C99 in git's source, though. :)
Let's get the ball rolling by starting to use some of the useful
features like
33 matches
Mail list logo