Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sat, 15 Apr 2023 19:12:07 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To:     Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Wei=DFschuh?= <linux@weissschuh.net>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] tools/nolibc: -std=c89 compatibility
Message-ID: <ZDra55UlsZdQYf70@1wt.eu>
References: <20230328-nolibc-c99-v2-0-c989f2289222@weissschuh.net>
 <ZDKFTvhzgVGBjr0M@1wt.eu>
 <ZDq455RD5yJ8Nwk0@1wt.eu>
 <e93c1260-ae29-4fa4-9097-a81784ac7ef8@t-8ch.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <e93c1260-ae29-4fa4-9097-a81784ac7ef8@t-8ch.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 05:15:27PM +0200, Thomas Wei?schuh wrote:
> On 2023-04-15 16:47:03+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 09, 2023 at 11:28:46AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 09:54:46PM +0000, Thomas Wei?schuh wrote:
> > > > This series replaces the C99 compatibility patch. (See v1 link below).
> > > > After the discussion about support C99 and/or GNU89 I came to the
> > > > conclusion supporting straight C89 is not very hard.
> > > > 
> > > > Instead of validating both C99 and GNU89 in some awkward way only for
> > > > somebody requesting true C89 support let's just do it this way.
> > > > 
> > > > Feel free to squash all the comment syntax patches together if you
> > > > prefer.
> > > 
> > > I gave it some thought, at first considering that going lower than GNU89
> > > was possibly not very useful, but given that the changes are very small
> > > in the end (mostly comments formating), I think that you're right. The
> > > cost of reaching this level of portability is basically zero once the
> > > patch is applied so I think it's worth doing it now. However I think I
> > > will indeed squash all the comments patch together as you suggest.
> > 
> > I've now squashed the ones about comments together, fixed the declaration
> > inside the for statement in nolibc-test and tested with gcc 4.7 & 4.8 and
> > confirmed it works as expected. I've queued it there for now:
> > 
> >    https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wtarreau/nolibc.git/log/?h=20230415-nolibc-updates-4a
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> I noticed today that I did not adapt the comments in arch-s390.h;
> because the start() comments were already correct.
> 
> But the last line of arch-s390.h still contains a C99 comment.

ah, I must have missed it because I checked using git grep //.

> Do you want me to send a patch or could you just push one?
> (Or fold it into my patch)

I'll do it and force-push. Thanks for checking and notifying me!

Cheers,
Willy