From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751757AbaJSVb2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Oct 2014 17:31:28 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0009.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.9]:54762 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751120AbaJSVb1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Oct 2014 17:31:27 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:800:960:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1538:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2198:2199:2393:2553:2559:2562:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3866:3868:3870:3871:3872:3874:4321:5007:6119:6226:6261:7903:8700:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12517:12519:12740:13069:13160:13229:13311:13357:21080,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: sand97_297b517ebed06 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1674 Message-ID: <1413754284.7076.1.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: use the gnu89 standard explicitly From: Joe Perches To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , Sasha Levin Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:31:24 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <1413734862-13510-1-git-send-email-sasha.levin@oracle.com> <1413750239.14629.17.camel@perches.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.7-0ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2014-10-19 at 13:46 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Oct 19, o2014 1:24 PM, "Joe Perches" wrote: > > > > I think it'd be moderately painful. > > > > There are ~1000 uses of variables like " new" in the kernel. > > So? That's not a C11 violation last I saw. The whole "new" keyword is still > just a C++ problem AFAIK. > > And if that is some stupid gcc5 thing, maybe just turning off that > particular gcc bug is possible? My mistake, false premise. Use of the new is not an issue with gcc 4.9 -std=gnu11.