Re: [PATCH 1/1] git-compat-util: add a test balloon for C99 support

2 messages, 2 authors, 2021-11-22 · open the first message on its own page

Re: [PATCH 1/1] git-compat-util: add a test balloon for C99 support

From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2021-11-22 20:52:10

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:
Carlo Arenas [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 9:27 AM Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
I had an impression that it was claimed that without this, the other
weatherbaloon for "for (type var=..." would not fly in some of the
jobs we have at CI?
It wouldn't if we have a CI job that tests with gcc < 5 but the last
version of that job died with travis-ci.org
I was wondering how Dscho's test was not failing, and that is an
easy answer to that question ;-)

If we wanted to resurrect that CI job, we can always add it in the
CI definition anyway, so I am OK with that, too.  
But if we were to do so, perhaps we'd want something like what I
gave at https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqy25lwa86.fsf@gitster.g/ in
its place to avoid confusing people.

Let me update that topic before dropping the one under discussion.

Re: [PATCH 1/1] git-compat-util: add a test balloon for C99 supporty

From: Johannes Schindelin <hidden>
Date: 2021-11-22 22:03:48

Hi Junio,

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Carlo Arenas [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 9:27 AM Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
I had an impression that it was claimed that without this, the other
weatherbaloon for "for (type var=..." would not fly in some of the
jobs we have at CI?
It wouldn't if we have a CI job that tests with gcc < 5 but the last
version of that job died with travis-ci.org
I was wondering how Dscho's test was not failing, and that is an
easy answer to that question ;-)

If we wanted to resurrect that CI job, we can always add it in the
CI definition anyway, so I am OK with that, too.
But if we were to do so, perhaps we'd want something like what I
gave at https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqy25lwa86.fsf@gitster.g/ in
its place to avoid confusing people.
That sounds like a good course of action to me.

Please note that the MSVC-related adjustment of the `FLEX_ARRAY` block is
still needed, I think.

Ciao,
Dscho

P.S.: In case it was not clear yet, I am in favor of going forward with
the C99 weather balloon. We should try to move in that direction, slowly
and gently, as is our custom.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help