On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 13:06 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 11.06.15 at 13:35, <ian.campb...@citrix.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 12:20 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: > >> As part of the tidyup, we should choose a particular C standard (89, > >> probably) and ensure that the API/ABI complies with `gcc -std=c$VER > >> -pedantic`. This will help to provide a consistent API on other > >> platforms (I seem to recall an effort to port libvchan to windows.) > > > > Shall we just follow what we do for xen/include/public i.e. > > $(CC) -x c -ansi -Wall -Werror > > ? It seems sensible that the two should follow similar rules. > > > > Or if not shall we change the requirements for xen/include/public to > > match? (Jan CCd for comments) > > We certainly shouldn't weaken what we do for the public headers. > How far standard compliance matters for the library interface > headers I really don't know.
Actually, since -ansi is the same as -std=c89 I don't think there is a practical difference between the two. Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
