Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 14:59:48 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: garyj@gmx.de Cc: Shawn Webb <shawn.webb@hardenedbsd.org>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Stlye(9) strengthen statements on not using K&R function definitions Message-ID: <CANCZdfpCRcyS%2BWM_h%2Bpz9zycjh8TjBCLwC3p971yihUkgO4CWQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20220920210955.7ee9fd9f@ernst.home> References: <CANCZdfqgjM52fVoCbEo0PteW7%2BGz5L0CJ=yBZ%2BKshVUY7Utx1A@mail.gmail.com> <20220920153801.wzsrphd2ychvfbgm@mutt-hbsd> <20220920210955.7ee9fd9f@ernst.home>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 1:09 PM Gary Jennejohn <garyj@gmx.de> wrote: > On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 11:38:01 -0400 > Shawn Webb <shawn.webb@hardenedbsd.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 10:31:17AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > > > Greetings > > > > > > I've posted a review https://reviews.freebsd.org/D35945 which > strengths > > > statements about K&R definitions and declarations: don't use them. > Most of > > > the K&R code has been removed from the tree (ufs being the last > straggler). > > > Future versions of the C standard will remove the K&R definitions and > > > declaration syntax. clang 15 will whine about this construct. > > > > > > The time is ripe to move to language that suggests an outright > prohibition. > > > > > > Comments about language? Make them in phabricator. > > > Comments about the idea? Reply here > > > > FYI: I did notice the other day that less(1) strictly uses K&R. > > > > Yes, but less is under contrib. The K&R purge should be limited to pure > FreeBSD code IMHO. > style(9) has never been about contrib code. less likely will need to update if it wants to keep building on newer compilers, and we'll pickup those changes. Warner [-- Attachment #2 --] <div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 1:09 PM Gary Jennejohn <<a href="mailto:garyj@gmx.de">garyj@gmx.de</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 11:38:01 -0400<br> Shawn Webb <<a href="mailto:shawn.webb@hardenedbsd.org" target="_blank">shawn.webb@hardenedbsd.org</a>> wrote:<br> <br> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 10:31:17AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:<br> > > Greetings<br> > ><br> > > I've posted a review <a href="https://reviews.freebsd.org/D35945" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://reviews.freebsd.org/D35945</a>; which strengths<br> > > statements about K&R definitions and declarations: don't use them. Most of<br> > > the K&R code has been removed from the tree (ufs being the last straggler).<br> > > Future versions of the C standard will remove the K&R definitions and<br> > > declaration syntax. clang 15 will whine about this construct.<br> > ><br> > > The time is ripe to move to language that suggests an outright prohibition.<br> > ><br> > > Comments about language? Make them in phabricator.<br> > > Comments about the idea? Reply here<br> ><br> > FYI: I did notice the other day that less(1) strictly uses K&R.<br> ><br> <br> Yes, but less is under contrib. The K&R purge should be limited to pure<br> FreeBSD code IMHO.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>style(9) has never been about contrib code. less likely will need to update if it wants to keep building on newer compilers, and we'll pickup those changes.</div><div><br></div><div>Warner</div></div></div>home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfpCRcyS%2BWM_h%2Bpz9zycjh8TjBCLwC3p971yihUkgO4CWQ>