Florian Obser <flor...@openbsd.org> wrote:
> On 2023-01-05 11:09 +01, Theo Buehler <t...@theobuehler.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 11:03:04AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> >> gcc4 does not really support C99 initalizers. It works most of the time
> >> but fails for more complex structs. Just fall back to memset() here.
> >
> > deraadt used { {0} } in kr_send_dependon(). Apparently that works.
> > I really don't understand why we can't use a 24 years old standard.
>
> We ran into an c99 issue in nsd and upstream was quite adamant that they
> want to keep using c99 stuff. Turned out gcc4 does not support all of
> c99 by default so they did some autoconf magic that sprinkled -std=c99
> into the compiler invocation when needed. This also worked on gcc3
> archs. Which apparently also fully supports c99 if you ask it nicely.
Maybe our old gcc should be flag-tweaked internally to always have that
on. Are there any downsides?
