[LTP] [PATCH] config: Explicitly set gnu99

[LTP] [PATCH] config: Explicitly set gnu99

[Richard Palethorpe via ltp]

Use the GNU variant of the C99 language to stop GCC 4.8.5 defaulting
to C90.

We can't use C99 because LTP is far from compliant.

Signed-off-by: Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.com>
Suggested-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
---
 include/mk/config.mk.in | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/mk/config.mk.in b/include/mk/config.mk.in
index 674843563..22301e126 100644
--- a/include/mk/config.mk.in
+++ b/include/mk/config.mk.in
@@ -80,8 +80,10 @@ OPT_CFLAGS		?= -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe
 
 WCFLAGS			?= -Wall -W @GCC_WARN_OLDSTYLE@
 
+STDCFLAGS		?= -std=gnu99
+
 LDFLAGS			+= $(WLDFLAGS)
-CFLAGS			+= $(DEBUG_CFLAGS) $(OPT_CFLAGS) $(WCFLAGS)
+CFLAGS			+= $(DEBUG_CFLAGS) $(OPT_CFLAGS) $(WCFLAGS) $(STDCFLAGS)
 
 LTP_CFLAGS_NOPIE	:= @LTP_CFLAGS_NOPIE@
 
-- 
2.38.1


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

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] config: Explicitly set gnu99

[Cyril Hrubis]

Hi!
> Use the GNU variant of the C99 language to stop GCC 4.8.5 defaulting
> to C90.
> 
> We can't use C99 because LTP is far from compliant.

I woder if this would work with different compilers. I suppose clang
does work, but what about icc?

I supose that we get tons of 'can't do pointer arithmetics on void*
pointers and stuff' with plain c99. Maybe it would be better to clean
these out instead.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

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

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] config: Explicitly set gnu99

[Richard Palethorpe]

Hello,

Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz> writes:

> Hi!
>> Use the GNU variant of the C99 language to stop GCC 4.8.5 defaulting
>> to C90.
>> 
>> We can't use C99 because LTP is far from compliant.
>
> I woder if this would work with different compilers. I suppose clang
> does work, but what about icc?

Clang is fine. I doubt that icc compiles LTP at present unless it does
support GNU extensions.

>
> I supose that we get tons of 'can't do pointer arithmetics on void*
> pointers and stuff' with plain c99. Maybe it would be better to clean
> these out instead.

https://github.com/richiejp/ltp/actions/runs/3515165803/jobs/5890081736

Some of this is solved by -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700 or some other macro (we
need multiple). However it doesn't end there:

 make STDCFLAGS='-std=c2x -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700'
make -C "lib" \
	-f "/home/rich/qa/ltp/lib/Makefile" all
make[1]: Entering directory '/home/rich/qa/ltp/lib'
In file included from ../include/old/test.h:37,
                 from get_path.c:41:
get_path.c: In function ‘tst_get_path’:
../include/tst_minmax.h:10:9: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘typeof’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
   10 |         typeof(a) _a = (a); \
      |         ^~~~~~

We probably also use 'x ?: y' and stuff like that.

So this opens up a rats nest basically.

-- 
Thank you,
Richard.

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

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] config: Explicitly set gnu99

[Cyril Hrubis]

Hi!
> > I woder if this would work with different compilers. I suppose clang
> > does work, but what about icc?
> 
> Clang is fine. I doubt that icc compiles LTP at present unless it does
> support GNU extensions.

Fair enough.

> > I supose that we get tons of 'can't do pointer arithmetics on void*
> > pointers and stuff' with plain c99. Maybe it would be better to clean
> > these out instead.
> 
> https://github.com/richiejp/ltp/actions/runs/3515165803/jobs/5890081736
> 
> Some of this is solved by -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700 or some other macro (we
> need multiple). However it doesn't end there:
> 
>  make STDCFLAGS='-std=c2x -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700'
> make -C "lib" \
> 	-f "/home/rich/qa/ltp/lib/Makefile" all
> make[1]: Entering directory '/home/rich/qa/ltp/lib'
> In file included from ../include/old/test.h:37,
>                  from get_path.c:41:
> get_path.c: In function ‘tst_get_path’:
> ../include/tst_minmax.h:10:9: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘typeof’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
>    10 |         typeof(a) _a = (a); \
>       |         ^~~~~~


Hmm that's strange, supposedly typeof() is finally standartized in c2x,
but it would be obviously missing from anything older.

> We probably also use 'x ?: y' and stuff like that.
> 
> So this opens up a rats nest basically.

Sigh, well LTP was never a nice codebase, at least it compiles most of
the time these days.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

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

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] config: Explicitly set gnu99

[Richard Palethorpe]

Hello,

Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz> writes:

> Hi!
>> > I woder if this would work with different compilers. I suppose clang
>> > does work, but what about icc?
>> 
>> Clang is fine. I doubt that icc compiles LTP at present unless it does
>> support GNU extensions.
>
> Fair enough.
>
>> > I supose that we get tons of 'can't do pointer arithmetics on void*
>> > pointers and stuff' with plain c99. Maybe it would be better to clean
>> > these out instead.
>> 
>> https://github.com/richiejp/ltp/actions/runs/3515165803/jobs/5890081736
>> 
>> Some of this is solved by -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700 or some other macro (we
>> need multiple). However it doesn't end there:
>> 
>>  make STDCFLAGS='-std=c2x -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700'
>> make -C "lib" \
>> 	-f "/home/rich/qa/ltp/lib/Makefile" all
>> make[1]: Entering directory '/home/rich/qa/ltp/lib'
>> In file included from ../include/old/test.h:37,
>>                  from get_path.c:41:
>> get_path.c: In function ‘tst_get_path’:
>> ../include/tst_minmax.h:10:9: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘typeof’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
>>    10 |         typeof(a) _a = (a); \
>>       |         ^~~~~~
>
>
> Hmm that's strange, supposedly typeof() is finally standartized in c2x,
> but it would be obviously missing from anything older.
>
>> We probably also use 'x ?: y' and stuff like that.
>> 
>> So this opens up a rats nest basically.
>
> Sigh, well LTP was never a nice codebase, at least it compiles most of
> the time these days.

Using whatever language features seem reasonable and adding compilation
targets to the CI seems like the best way to go IMO.

-- 
Thank you,
Richard.

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

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] config: Explicitly set gnu99

[Petr Vorel]

Hi Richie, Cyril,

...
> >> > I woder if this would work with different compilers. I suppose clang
> >> > does work, but what about icc?

> >> Clang is fine. I doubt that icc compiles LTP at present unless it does
> >> support GNU extensions.

> > Fair enough.

> >> > I supose that we get tons of 'can't do pointer arithmetics on void*
> >> > pointers and stuff' with plain c99. Maybe it would be better to clean
> >> > these out instead.

FYI gnu99 works on our CI
https://github.com/pevik/ltp/actions/runs/3521626082

and c99 not
https://github.com/pevik/ltp/actions/runs/3521624383
parse_opts.c:458:35: error: implicit declaration of function 'sbrk' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
parse_opts.c:475:27: error: 'CLOCK_MONOTONIC' undeclared (first use in this function)
parse_opts.c:208:47: error: 'optarg' undeclared (first use in this function)
and many other errors

Richie probably found that himself.

So that I'm for merging this and Jan's fixes on the top of it.
I suppose there is no feature dependency on autotools (i.e. we don't need to add
-std=gnu99 to any of macros in m4/.

Kind regards,
Petr

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

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] config: Explicitly set gnu99

[Richard Palethorpe]

Hello,

Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> writes:

> Hi Richie, Cyril,
>
> ...
>> >> > I woder if this would work with different compilers. I suppose clang
>> >> > does work, but what about icc?
>
>> >> Clang is fine. I doubt that icc compiles LTP at present unless it does
>> >> support GNU extensions.
>
>> > Fair enough.
>
>> >> > I supose that we get tons of 'can't do pointer arithmetics on void*
>> >> > pointers and stuff' with plain c99. Maybe it would be better to clean
>> >> > these out instead.
>
> FYI gnu99 works on our CI
> https://github.com/pevik/ltp/actions/runs/3521626082
>
> and c99 not
> https://github.com/pevik/ltp/actions/runs/3521624383
> parse_opts.c:458:35: error: implicit declaration of function 'sbrk' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> parse_opts.c:475:27: error: 'CLOCK_MONOTONIC' undeclared (first use in this function)
> parse_opts.c:208:47: error: 'optarg' undeclared (first use in this function)
> and many other errors
>
> Richie probably found that himself.
>
> So that I'm for merging this and Jan's fixes on the top of it.
> I suppose there is no feature dependency on autotools (i.e. we don't need to add
> -std=gnu99 to any of macros in m4/.

Yes, agreed. Just see my comment on the other thread first. Thanks.

>
> Kind regards,
> Petr


-- 
Thank you,
Richard.

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

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] config: Explicitly set gnu99

[Petr Vorel]

Hi all,

Reviewed-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>

> Hi!
> > > I woder if this would work with different compilers. I suppose clang
> > > does work, but what about icc?

> > Clang is fine. I doubt that icc compiles LTP at present unless it does
> > support GNU extensions.

> Fair enough.

FYI The code was compiled also with -std=c99 on both gcc and clang
(just in case some strange compiler had problems with gnu99).

> > > I supose that we get tons of 'can't do pointer arithmetics on void*
> > > pointers and stuff' with plain c99. Maybe it would be better to clean
> > > these out instead.

> > https://github.com/richiejp/ltp/actions/runs/3515165803/jobs/5890081736

> > Some of this is solved by -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700 or some other macro (we
> > need multiple). However it doesn't end there:

> >  make STDCFLAGS='-std=c2x -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700'
> > make -C "lib" \
> > 	-f "/home/rich/qa/ltp/lib/Makefile" all
> > make[1]: Entering directory '/home/rich/qa/ltp/lib'
> > In file included from ../include/old/test.h:37,
> >                  from get_path.c:41:
> > get_path.c: In function ‘tst_get_path’:
> > ../include/tst_minmax.h:10:9: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘typeof’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
> >    10 |         typeof(a) _a = (a); \
> >       |         ^~~~~~


> Hmm that's strange, supposedly typeof() is finally standartized in c2x,
> but it would be obviously missing from anything older.

> > We probably also use 'x ?: y' and stuff like that.

> > So this opens up a rats nest basically.

> Sigh, well LTP was never a nice codebase, at least it compiles most of
> the time these days.

Kind regards,
Petr

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