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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--0000000000007fb15c05e9221cf7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 --0000000000007fb15c05e9221cf7 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">= <div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 1:09 PM Gary = Jennejohn <<a href=3D"mailto:garyj@gmx.de">garyj@gmx.de</a>> wrote:<b= r></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Tue, 20 Sep 20= 22 11:38:01 -0400<br> Shawn Webb <<a href=3D"mailto:shawn.webb@hardenedbsd.org" target=3D"_bla= nk">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=3D"https://reviews.freebsd.org/D= 35945" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://reviews.freebsd.org/D35= 945</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 la= st straggler).<br> > > Future versions of the C standard will remove the K&R definit= ions 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 pr= ohibition.<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.=C2=A0 The K&R purge should be limited t= o pure<br> FreeBSD code IMHO.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>style(9) has never b= een 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> --0000000000007fb15c05e9221cf7--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfpCRcyS%2BWM_h%2Bpz9zycjh8TjBCLwC3p971yihUkgO4CWQ>