Re: coreutils-6.5: yet another C89 problem

[Matthew Woehlke]

Bob Proulx wrote:
> Paul Eggert wrote:
> > Matthew Woehlke <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> > > I could probably do it on
> > > this box, but since it's Linux, it would still be with gcc.
> > Even that would be helpful, since our current buildbot doesn't do the
> > particular combination of GCC options you're interested in.
>
> I would be happy to add a special-options-build to the buildbot to
> check for c89 compatibility.  I will patch in the c99-to-c89.diff
> first of course.  What options would be required for this?  Is
> "-Wdeclaration-after-statement -Werror" sufficient?

Strictly speaking, no it isn't(*), but it catches by far the most common 
non-c89-compliant error. AFAIAC it is "good enough" to enforce check-in 
policy and get decl-after-stmt-isms fixed right away. Any more exotic 
non-compliances can wait for people to do real builds.

(* You would need to (a) somehow force gcc to reject all non-c89 
constructs or (b) use a pure c89 compiler that does not support anything 
extensions. However, I (a) couldn't figure out how to do this, and (b) 
know of no such compiler for Linux. The only reasonable solution for (b) 
would be to use several different c89 compilers on more exotic platforms.)

--
Matthew
Caution: keep out of reach of adults.