[pacman-dev] gnu89-inline

[Dan McGee]

On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 3:46 AM, Sebastian Nowicki <sebnow at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Xavier Chantry <chantry.xavier at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Xavier Chantry
>> <chantry.xavier at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Sebastian Nowicki <sebnow at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> Looks like there are more warnings when using gnu89:
>> >>
>> >> $ make 2>&1 | grep 'warning:' | cut -d' ' -f3- | sort | uniq -c
>> >>     74 comma at end of enumerator list
>> >>      1 initializer element is not computable at load time
>> >>      7 ISO C90 does not support the 'j' gnu_printf length modifier
>> >>    106 ISO C90 does not support the 'z' gnu_printf length modifier
>> >>     41 ISO C90 forbids mixed declarations and code
>> >>     57 ISO C90 forbids specifying subobject to initialize
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > There are lots of duplicates (173 -> 58 warnings after removing them).
>> >      4 commas at the end of enumerator lists are a C99-specific
>> > feature [-pedantic]
>> >      2 extension used [-pedantic]
>> >     50 ISO C90 forbids mixing declarations and code
>> > [-Wdeclaration-after-statement]
>> >      2 variable declaration in for loop is a C99-specific feature
>> [-pedantic]
>> >
>>
>> Actually that was the clang result while Seb posted results with gcc.
>> In that case, removing duplicates goes from 286 to 214 (mostly comma
>> at end of enumerator list from alpm.h)
>>
>> grep warning make-gcc.log | sort -u | cut -d' ' -f3- | sort | uniq -c
>>       4 comma at end of enumerator list
>>      1 initializer element is not computable at load time
>>      6 ISO C90 does not support the 'j' gnu_printf length modifier
>>     105 ISO C90 does not support the 'z' gnu_printf length modifier
>>      41 ISO C90 forbids mixed declarations and code
>>     57 ISO C90 forbids specifying subobject to initialize
>>
>>
> Any reason not to move to C99? I believe the 'j' and 'z' length modifiers
> are standard in C99, along with mixed declarations and probably commas at
> the end of enums. The code doesn't conform to C90 atm anyway. Not exactly
> compelling arguments, but it would be good to explicitly define which
> standard the code base should conform to.

We're already using C99, so this would be nothing new. Note how
configure.ac asks for a C99 compiler specifically- AC_PROG_CC_C99.

The only thing that I see as potentially worth it out of this is
making alpm.h and alpm_list.h C89 compliant, if we even do that.

-Dan