Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200628182601.GA84577@gmail.com> <CAHk-=wgD+q+oDdtukYC74_cDX5i0Ynf0GLhuNe2Faaokejj6fQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200708162053.GU4800@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CAHk-=wggLLv8dY7ViOm7rdHxVNKJUkZMuR90vXO307WkBT8qrw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a1GFjM5-ENf7XL6jjUvRdJhgjzYpSGD5R7TmW6oWEhYRA@mail.gmail.com> <20200709103459.wenqhbp52vesr7e5@box>
In-Reply-To: <20200709103459.wenqhbp52vesr7e5@box>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Fri, 10 Jul 2020 12:09:36 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a3Cd30gthLj-Kw8dsNa2Cse3YfUs9q8c=nc7fHtQ-QLSg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] EFI fixes
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 12:35 PM Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@shutemov.name> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 11:30:27AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > The most interesting version to require in the future would be
> > gcc-7, which IIRC is the point at which we can just use -std=gnu99
> > or -std=gnu11 instead of -std=gnu89 without running into the
> > problem with compound literals[1].
>
> It is gcc-5, not gcc-7. This commit:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=d303aeafa9b4

Ok, glad I was wrong here. I confirmed that with gcc-5 or higher I
can build a kernel with -std=gnu11 or -std=gnu99 instead of
-std=gnu89, but gcc-4.9.4 fails with anything other than gnu89.

I forgot why we care though -- is there any behavior of gnu11
that we prefer over the gnu99 behavior, or is it just going with
the times because it's the right thing to do? All the interesting
features of c11 seem to also be available as extensions in
gcc-4.9's gnu89, though I could not find a definite list of the
differences.

      Arnd