FWIW I'd prefer we don't mix declarations and code unless there's a
clear reason to do it from a simplicity perspective. I.E. I think we
should go from mandating that it's never allowed, to suggesting that
it's discouraged. The reason is that most of the code doesn't do
these things, and there's a value in consistency. That said, I don't
feel strongly about it.
Ethan
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 03:31:03PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>>
>> On May 23, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 05:37:38PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>> >> As even the MSVC 2013 now supports the C99 mixing of declarations and
>> >> code, we can now allow them in OVS code.
>> >>
>> >> GCC (at least some versions of it) require the -std=c99 option to not
>> >> issue warnings, and since we rely in GCC extensions when compiling
>> >> with GCC, the option -std=gnu99 is now added to the CFLAGS by
>> >> configure, if the compiler accepts it.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme <jrajaha...@nicira.com>
>> >
>> > Are you sure that this line in configure.ac isn't the root of the
>> > problem?
>> >
>> > OVS_ENABLE_OPTION([-Wdeclaration-after-statement])
>>
>> I did not notice this, sorry. It turned out to be the problem, so there is
>> no need to add the -std option.
>>
>> I left in the change in transliterating the ?=? as well as ?-? to ?_? so
>> that if we ever need to add options with ?=? in them, there should be no
>> problems in doing so.
>>
>> >
>> > I'm still really nervous about this one (I think it often uglifies code)
>> > but let's give it a shot:
>> >
>>
>> If it turns out to be too ugly we can always take this one back.
>>
>> >> - * Don't mix declarations and code within a block.
>> >> + * Mixing of declarations and code within a block.
>> >
>> >> + Don't use other C99 features that are not widely implemented in
>> >> +older compilers:
>> >> +
>> >
>> > We have enough of these in the source that I think they're not a problem
>> > in practice anymore, so let's delete this one too:
>> >
>> >> * Don't put a trailing comma in an enum declaration (e.g. don't
>> >> write "enum { x = 1, };").
>> >
>>
>> Ok, I?ll change this too. How about this incremental:
>
> That's fine, thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev@openvswitch.org
> http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
