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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <e93c1260-ae29-4fa4-9097-a81784ac7ef8@t-8ch.de>
Date:   Sat, 15 Apr 2023 17:15:27 +0200
From:   Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
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

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 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

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.

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

Thanks,
Thomas