Re: CVS commit: src/sys/fs/tmpfs

2011-05-14 Thread David Holland
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,

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/fs/tmpfs

2011-05-14 Thread Masao Uebayashi
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

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/fs/tmpfs

2011-05-14 Thread Marc Balmer
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

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/fs/tmpfs

2011-05-14 Thread Anders Magnusson
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

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/fs/tmpfs

2011-05-14 Thread Marc Balmer
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.

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/fs/tmpfs

2011-05-14 Thread Iain Hibbert
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

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/fs/tmpfs

2011-05-14 Thread Mindaugas Rasiukevicius
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

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/crypto/rijndael

2011-05-14 Thread Jürgen Hannken-Illjes
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

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/fs/tmpfs

2011-05-14 Thread Christos Zoulas
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

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/crypto/rijndael

2011-05-14 Thread Christos Zoulas
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

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/crypto/rijndael

2011-05-14 Thread Julio Merino
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

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/crypto/rijndael

2011-05-14 Thread Christos Zoulas
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'

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/crypto/rijndael

2011-05-14 Thread Julio Merino
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

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/fs/tmpfs

2011-05-14 Thread David Holland
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

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/fs/tmpfs

2011-05-14 Thread Alexander Nasonov
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

Change the subject (defaulting to c99 in userland) was: CVS commit: src/sys/fs/tmpfs

2011-05-14 Thread Bernd Ernesti
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 04:45:07PM +, David Holland wrote: 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

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/fs/tmpfs

2011-05-14 Thread Martin Husemann
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