On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 06:01:37AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> 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?
The warning is not silenced by -std=c99:
cc -O2 -pipe -std=c99 -Wall -I/usr/src/usr.sbin/bgpd -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -Wshadow -Wpointer-arith
-Wcast-qual -Wsign-compare -Werror-implicit-function-declaration -MD -MP
-c /usr/src/usr.sbin/bgpd/kroute.c
/usr/src/usr.sbin/bgpd/kroute.c: In function 'knexthop_true_nexthop':
/usr/src/usr.sbin/bgpd/kroute.c:2162: warning: missing braces around initializer
/usr/src/usr.sbin/bgpd/kroute.c:2162: warning: (near initialization for
'gateway.ba')
Also I thought that gcc4 defaults to -std=c99 or gnu99.
--
:wq Claudio
