On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 17:43:47 +0100 Emil Velikov <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 18 June 2018 at 11:36, Pekka Paalanen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 16:49:37 +0100 > > Emil Velikov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Here's a take v2 of the series, with the following changes: > >> - don't trim trailing NULL entries from the wl_interfaces* array > >> - updated tests - separate patches to ease review, to be squashed > >> > >> On the question of why, despite the aesthetics these patches make the > >> generated files actually understandable by a human being... > > > > Hi Emil, > > > > on the previous round, this concern was raised: > > > Thanks, did not spot that one. > > > > On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:36:06 +0000 > > Daniel Stone <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> But that being said, my worry is that we don't actually control the > >> compilation environment for the scanner output. Scanner output > >> currently compiles with '-pedantic -ansi -Wall -Wextra' (at least, > >> when inline is defined). This patch changes that requirement, and I > >> worry that - like previous discussions on changing scanner output - > >> that upgrading Wayland would lead to people hitting compilation > >> failures. > > > > What is your rationale for that being a non-issue? > > > According to [1] GCC has supported designated initializers since v3.0, > released some 17 years ago [2]. > Clang has supported them from a very early age. On the Windows front > MSVC 2013 introduced support and it EOL. > > Other less common compilers (say the Sun/Oracle or Intel ones) are > fine as well - although I cannot give you exact details. > > In other words unless someone does one of the following two they're > perfectly fine. > - uses unsupported (ancient?) compiler, or > - explicitly sets -pedantic -ansi _and_ -Werror > > In the case they do, they should seriously reconsider what they're > inflicting on themselves. > Both from functionality and security POV. Ok. So '-pedantic -ansi' will still compile, even if with warnings? Ansi being equivalent to -std=c90 it seems. I can accept that. Is anyone against this change? Thanks, pq > > -Emil > > [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html > [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html
pgpFvYAZUwePL.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
