On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 06:37:53PM +0100, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
Generally - C99 is encouraged. However, I disagree that variables
should be declared in the middle of context (for a minimum scope),
unless there is a *clear* benefit. Otherwise, it makes code harder
to read,
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 2:37 AM, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius
rm...@netbsd.org wrote:
Matt Thomas m...@3am-software.com wrote:
On May 7, 2011, at 5:03 PM, Christos Zoulas wrote:
Module Name: src
Committed By: christos
Date: Sun May 8 00:03:35 UTC 2011
Modified
Am 10.05.11 02:34, schrieb Matt Thomas:
Module Name: src
Committed By: matt
Date: Tue May 10 00:34:26 UTC 2011
Modified Files:
src/sys/fs/tmpfs: tmpfs_vnops.c
Log Message:
yes, more C99 please (back out previous change).
After this
On 05/14/2011 10:34 AM, Marc Balmer wrote:
Am 10.05.11 02:34, schrieb Matt Thomas:
Module Name:src
Committed By: matt
Date: Tue May 10 00:34:26 UTC 2011
Modified Files:
src/sys/fs/tmpfs: tmpfs_vnops.c
Log Message:
yes, more C99 please (back out previous change).
After
Am 14.05.11 10:45, schrieb Anders Magnusson:
[...]
What is the current state of C99 vs. older Cs? Do all arches /
compilers we have support C99? I assume gcc, llvm/clang are safe, but
what about pcc wrt C99?
pcc should be C99 compliant. If something do not work as expected, I'll
fix it.
On Sat, 14 May 2011, Marc Balmer wrote:
What is the current state of C99 vs. older Cs? Do all arches /
compilers we have support C99? I assume gcc, llvm/clang are safe, but
what about pcc wrt C99?
I'd like a short clarification here, since this might influence my
coding... tnx.
pcc is a
Masao Uebayashi uebay...@gmail.com wrote:
The kernel explicitly allows C99 and actually C99 is encouraged.
So that should reverted :)
Generally - C99 is encouraged. However, I disagree that variables
should be declared in the middle of context (for a minimum scope),
unless there is a
On May 14, 2011, at 3:59 AM, Christos Zoulas wrote:
Module Name: src
Committed By: christos
Date: Sat May 14 01:59:19 UTC 2011
Modified Files:
src/sys/crypto/rijndael: rijndael-api-fst.c
Log Message:
- don't assume aligned buffers.
- little KNF
To generate a diff
On May 14, 12:00pm, rm...@netbsd.org (Mindaugas Rasiukevicius) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/fs/tmpfs
| Benefit is code readability. It is easier to track the variables when
| they are defined and initialised in the beginning of context.
|
| If code is longer and/or complex - it
On May 14, 1:02pm, hann...@eis.cs.tu-bs.de
(=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Hannken-Illjes?=) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/crypto/rijndael
| This breaks in src/regress/sys/crypto/rijndael:
|
| # compile rijndael/rijndael-api-fst.o
| 486--netbsdelf-gcc -O2 -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes
On 5/14/11 12:27 PM, Julio Merino wrote:
Module Name:src
Committed By: jmmv
Date: Sat May 14 16:27:50 UTC 2011
Modified Files:
src/sys/crypto/rijndael: rijndael-api-fst.c
Log Message:
Declare for-loop control variable outside of the for statement to prevent
a warning
On May 14, 12:29pm, j...@julipedia.org (Julio Merino) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/crypto/rijndael
| Declare for-loop control variable outside of the for statement to prevent
| a warning and therefore fix the build.
|
| Ah! I just saw your warns=4 change. I presume my 'fix'
On 5/14/11 12:31 PM, Christos Zoulas wrote:
On May 14, 12:29pm, j...@julipedia.org (Julio Merino) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/crypto/rijndael
| Declare for-loop control variable outside of the for statement to prevent
| a warning and therefore fix the build.
|
| Ah! I just saw
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 12:07:20PM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
If we are going to be compiling the kernel in c99 mode, then I
suggest that we do the same for userland instead of turning it on
for userland piecemeal.
+1
is there anything we expect to break?
--
David A. Holland
14.05.2011, 10:38, Masao Uebayashi uebay...@gmail.com:
I disagree. If variables are declared in the middle of context, those
variables have narrower contexts. Narrowing context is always a win
IMO.
That's true only if you don't use gotos. Otherwise, you might jump past
an initialization
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 10:34:05AM +0200, Marc Balmer wrote:
What is the current state of C99 vs. older Cs? Do all arches /
compilers we have support C99?
We have lost the playstation2 port, because we don't have a working C99
compiler for it (so a -current kernel can not be compiled).
Martin
16 matches
Mail list logo
