linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] tools/nolibc: -std=c89 compatibility

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZDq455RD5yJ8Nwk0@1wt.eu>
Date:   Sat, 15 Apr 2023 16:47:03 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] tools/nolibc: -std=c89 compatibility

Hi Thomas,

On Sun, Apr 09, 2023 at 11:28:46AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 09:54:46PM +0000, Thomas Weißschuh 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

Thank you!
Willy