Re: [LTP] [PATCH 2/3] fanotify10: Add support for multiple event files

From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
To: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.com>,
	ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 2/3] fanotify10: Add support for multiple event files
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 10:39:46 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y3tHYo/iQ6t6D7SR@rei> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y3tF2XF1xVlOE3fA@pevik>

Hi!
> > > > +#define foreach_path(tc, buf, pname) \
> > > > +	for (int piter = 0; format_path_check((buf), (tc)->pname##_fmt,	\
> > > Unfortunately we still support C99 due old compiler on CentOS 7,
> > > therefore int piter needs to be defined outside of for loop.
> 
> > Hum, but variable declaration in the for loop is part of C99 standard (as
> > the error message also says). So did you want to say you are compiling
> > against C89 standard? And CentOS 7 ships with GCC 4.8.5 AFAICS which should
> > be fully C99 compliant BTW. So what's the situation here?
> I'm sorry, I didn't express clearly myself. Yes, 4.8.5 supports C99,
> but the default is C90 [1].
> 
> > That being said I can workaround the problem in the macro, it will just be
> > somewhat uglier. So before doing that I'd like to understand whether
> > following C89 is really required...
> 
> I'm don't remember why we have just not specified -std=... already, Cyril had
> some objections, thus Cc him.

I think that at the time there stil was even older compiler we had to
support. I guess that we can add -std=c99 now.

So I would propose adding -std=c99 into CFLAGS and see if anyone would
complain.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp