[pacman-dev] gnu89-inline

[Xavier Chantry]

On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Xavier Chantry
> <chantry.xavier at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am just curious, what do we need this flag for ?
>
> Searching commits, it wasn't too hard to find this, although I don't
> know the full context or relevance. Not sure if it was just a GCC bug
> at the time?
>
> commit d8e88aa0175fd950d007578ea0690952f49247f1
> Author: Dan McGee <dan at archlinux.org>
> Date:   Tue Jun 5 17:32:09 2007 -0400
>
>    Fix compilation with GCC 4.2.0
>
>    'inline' keyword in C99 is not correctly recognized, so compilation fails on
>    the warning it spits. This fixes this.
>
>    Signed-off-by: Dan McGee <dan at archlinux.org>
>
> I also see this in the GCC 4.2.0 release notes, which is surely what I
> was referring to at the time:
>
> In the next release of GCC, 4.3, -std=c99 or -std=gnu99 will direct
> GCC to handle inline functions as specified in the C99 standard. In
> preparation for this, GCC 4.2 will warn about any use of non-static
> inline functions in gnu99 or c99 mode. This new warning may be
> disabled with the new gnu_inline function attribute or the new
> -fgnu89-inline command-line option. Also, GCC 4.2 and later will
> define one of the preprocessor macros __GNUC_GNU_INLINE__ or
> __GNUC_STDC_INLINE__ to indicate the semantics of inline functions in
> the current compilation.
>

So now the question is whether you still want to support gcc 4.2 ?
You are always much more conservative than I am :)

>
>> Anyway it looks like we could use -std=gnu89 alternatively ?
>> ... which brings to another topic that was brought recently on the ML
>> : I tried to build with that and got a lot of warnings :)
>> ../../lib/libalpm/alpm.h:396:29: warning: commas at the end of
>> enumerator lists are a C99-specific feature [-pedantic]
>> pacman.c:1201:8: warning: ISO C90 forbids mixing declarations and code
>> [-Wdeclaration-after-statement]
>> util.c:797:8: warning: variable declaration in for loop is a
>> C99-specific feature [-pedantic]
>
> How many are there; did you just trim the list down? If it is easy to
> fix then we might think about doing so.
>

Yes there were many in total, several of each.
IMO warning 1 and 3 are must-have c99 features so I am for using these
everywhere and certainly not for removing them :)

I am fine with fixing declaration-after-statement, and IIRC there were
just a few.