Re: [PATCHv2 wayland 0/8] wayland-scanner: produce code with c99 initializers
On 20 June 2018 at 11:23, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 17:43:47 +0100
> Emil Velikov wrote:
>
>> On 18 June 2018 at 11:36, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 16:49:37 +0100
>> > Emil Velikov wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> Here's a take v2 of the series, with the following changes:
>> >> - don't trim trailing NULL entries from the wl_interfaces* array
>> >> - updated tests - separate patches to ease review, to be squashed
>> >>
>> >> On the question of why, despite the aesthetics these patches make the
>> >> generated files actually understandable by a human being...
>> >
>> > Hi Emil,
>> >
>> > on the previous round, this concern was raised:
>> >
>> Thanks, did not spot that one.
>>
>>
>> > On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:36:06 +
>> > Daniel Stone wrote:
>> >
>> >> But that being said, my worry is that we don't actually control the
>> >> compilation environment for the scanner output. Scanner output
>> >> currently compiles with '-pedantic -ansi -Wall -Wextra' (at least,
>> >> when inline is defined). This patch changes that requirement, and I
>> >> worry that - like previous discussions on changing scanner output -
>> >> that upgrading Wayland would lead to people hitting compilation
>> >> failures.
>> >
>> > What is your rationale for that being a non-issue?
>> >
>> According to [1] GCC has supported designated initializers since v3.0,
>> released some 17 years ago [2].
>> Clang has supported them from a very early age. On the Windows front
>> MSVC 2013 introduced support and it EOL.
>>
>> Other less common compilers (say the Sun/Oracle or Intel ones) are
>> fine as well - although I cannot give you exact details.
>>
>> In other words unless someone does one of the following two they're
>> perfectly fine.
>> - uses unsupported (ancient?) compiler, or
>> - explicitly sets -pedantic -ansi _and_ -Werror
>>
>> In the case they do, they should seriously reconsider what they're
>> inflicting on themselves.
>> Both from functionality and security POV.
>
> Ok. So '-pedantic -ansi' will still compile, even if with warnings?
> Ansi being equivalent to -std=c90 it seems.
>
You can easily check that with something like the following.
cd $wayland-repo
apply patches
cd tests/data
echo "#include "small-server.h" >> ff.c
echo "int main(void) { return 0; }" >> ff.c
gcc -pedantic -ansi -Dinline="" -I. example-code.c ff.c
-lwayland-server -o foobar
-Emil
___
wayland-devel mailing list
wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
Re: [PATCHv2 wayland 0/8] wayland-scanner: produce code with c99 initializers
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 17:43:47 +0100 Emil Velikov wrote: > On 18 June 2018 at 11:36, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 16:49:37 +0100 > > Emil Velikov wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Here's a take v2 of the series, with the following changes: > >> - don't trim trailing NULL entries from the wl_interfaces* array > >> - updated tests - separate patches to ease review, to be squashed > >> > >> On the question of why, despite the aesthetics these patches make the > >> generated files actually understandable by a human being... > > > > Hi Emil, > > > > on the previous round, this concern was raised: > > > Thanks, did not spot that one. > > > > On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:36:06 + > > Daniel Stone wrote: > > > >> But that being said, my worry is that we don't actually control the > >> compilation environment for the scanner output. Scanner output > >> currently compiles with '-pedantic -ansi -Wall -Wextra' (at least, > >> when inline is defined). This patch changes that requirement, and I > >> worry that - like previous discussions on changing scanner output - > >> that upgrading Wayland would lead to people hitting compilation > >> failures. > > > > What is your rationale for that being a non-issue? > > > According to [1] GCC has supported designated initializers since v3.0, > released some 17 years ago [2]. > Clang has supported them from a very early age. On the Windows front > MSVC 2013 introduced support and it EOL. > > Other less common compilers (say the Sun/Oracle or Intel ones) are > fine as well - although I cannot give you exact details. > > In other words unless someone does one of the following two they're > perfectly fine. > - uses unsupported (ancient?) compiler, or > - explicitly sets -pedantic -ansi _and_ -Werror > > In the case they do, they should seriously reconsider what they're > inflicting on themselves. > Both from functionality and security POV. Ok. So '-pedantic -ansi' will still compile, even if with warnings? Ansi being equivalent to -std=c90 it seems. I can accept that. Is anyone against this change? Thanks, pq > > -Emil > > [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html > [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html pgpFvYAZUwePL.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
Re: [PATCHv2 wayland 0/8] wayland-scanner: produce code with c99 initializers
On 18 June 2018 at 11:36, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 16:49:37 +0100 > Emil Velikov wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Here's a take v2 of the series, with the following changes: >> - don't trim trailing NULL entries from the wl_interfaces* array >> - updated tests - separate patches to ease review, to be squashed >> >> On the question of why, despite the aesthetics these patches make the >> generated files actually understandable by a human being... > > Hi Emil, > > on the previous round, this concern was raised: > Thanks, did not spot that one. > On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:36:06 + > Daniel Stone wrote: > >> But that being said, my worry is that we don't actually control the >> compilation environment for the scanner output. Scanner output >> currently compiles with '-pedantic -ansi -Wall -Wextra' (at least, >> when inline is defined). This patch changes that requirement, and I >> worry that - like previous discussions on changing scanner output - >> that upgrading Wayland would lead to people hitting compilation >> failures. > > What is your rationale for that being a non-issue? > According to [1] GCC has supported designated initializers since v3.0, released some 17 years ago [2]. Clang has supported them from a very early age. On the Windows front MSVC 2013 introduced support and it EOL. Other less common compilers (say the Sun/Oracle or Intel ones) are fine as well - although I cannot give you exact details. In other words unless someone does one of the following two they're perfectly fine. - uses unsupported (ancient?) compiler, or - explicitly sets -pedantic -ansi _and_ -Werror In the case they do, they should seriously reconsider what they're inflicting on themselves. Both from functionality and security POV. -Emil [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html ___ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
Re: [PATCHv2 wayland 0/8] wayland-scanner: produce code with c99 initializers
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 16:49:37 +0100 Emil Velikov wrote: > Hi all, > > Here's a take v2 of the series, with the following changes: > - don't trim trailing NULL entries from the wl_interfaces* array > - updated tests - separate patches to ease review, to be squashed > > On the question of why, despite the aesthetics these patches make the > generated files actually understandable by a human being... Hi Emil, on the previous round, this concern was raised: On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:36:06 + Daniel Stone wrote: > But that being said, my worry is that we don't actually control the > compilation environment for the scanner output. Scanner output > currently compiles with '-pedantic -ansi -Wall -Wextra' (at least, > when inline is defined). This patch changes that requirement, and I > worry that - like previous discussions on changing scanner output - > that upgrading Wayland would lead to people hitting compilation > failures. What is your rationale for that being a non-issue? Thanks, pq pgpoIY5a5Lf4G.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
[PATCHv2 wayland 0/8] wayland-scanner: produce code with c99 initializers
Hi all,
Here's a take v2 of the series, with the following changes:
- don't trim trailing NULL entries from the wl_interfaces* array
- updated tests - separate patches to ease review, to be squashed
On the question of why, despite the aesthetics these patches make the
generated files actually understandable by a human being...
Thanks
Emil
Emil Velikov (8):
scanner: use c99 initializers for the wl_interface * array
fixup! scanner: use c99 initializers for the wl_interface * array
scanner: use c99 initializers for the request/events arrays
fixup! scanner: use c99 initializers for the request/events arrays
scanner: use c99 initializers for the interface symbols
fixup! scanner: use c99 initializers for the interface symbols
scanner: initialize .{method,event}_count via ARRAY_SIZE
fixup! scanner: initialize .{method,event}_count via ARRAY_SIZE
src/scanner.c | 32 +--
tests/data/example-code.c | 557
tests/data/small-code-core.c| 31 +--
tests/data/small-code.c | 31 +--
tests/data/small-private-code.c | 31 +--
5 files changed, 339 insertions(+), 343 deletions(-)
--
2.16.0
___
wayland-devel mailing list
wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
