On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 8:37 AM Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 15, 2019, at 9:21 AM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 9:14 AM Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Jan 9, 2019, at 7:41 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Jim, > >> > >> Does CFLAGS -std=c99 solve your issue? It seems to work here. I'm > building on the Fedora 29, largely frozen end-of-july. Reverting the patch > below and toggling -std=c89 to -std=c99 in configure.in building all but > two modules from trunk is building clean, and results in this command for > error checking; > >> /usr/lib64/apr-1/build/libtool --silent --mode=compile gcc -pthread > -std=c99 -Werror -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes > -Wmissing-declarations -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wpointer-arith > -Wformat -Wformat-security -Wunused -DLINUX -D_REENTRANT -D_GNU_SOURCE > -DAP_DEBUG > >> > >> Is it reasonable to enforce c99 limitations at this late date? I'm not > suggesting we change the general builds from c89 in the 2.4 branch, but > that is something we might want to consider for trunk, 20 years out. > >> > >> > >> Personally, I'd be fine allowing c99 in both 2.4 and trunk, considering > that we are in 2019 already :) > >> > >> Any platform that lacks a c99 compatible CC likely doesn't build anyway. > > > > As a binary distributor, even though a C99 compiler may be available > > on platform X, it might not be in use. Wouldn't love seeing it in > > 2.4. > > I'm not proposing a change for 2.4... but I wouldn't oppose it either :) > > Allowing c99 for trunk would make backporting to 2.4 (which would stay > c89) possibly more difficult. This is either a good thing or a bad thing. > So far, however, iirc we have not had any issues sticking with c89 and I > don't think the above would warrant such a change. IMO of course. I might not have been clear, above. I'm not suggesting changing things for the customary build, leave that (at least on httpd 2.4) as -std=c89. I think we should have this discussion of when we will begin accepting c99 source patches, but that isn't the immediate problem you've tripped over. I see several options; Only for maintainer mode, where we are strictly handling all errors, always accept all -std=c99 behaviors (fix any legacy pre-c99 issues that may arise.) All the system headers using c99 (or earlier) semantics should behave well. Or, for maintainer mode, always relax the comments restriction only so we have -std=c89 -Werror -Wall -Wno-error=comment (but not modified in the modules/filters/config.m4 where it isn't apparent who toggled this.) You can almost call this c99-lite which solves one c99'ism in newer system headers without allowing all the c99'isms in system headers. Or, staying closest to the proposed patch, add -Wno-error=comment only to mod_proxy_html's CPPFLAGS, and stop messing with the rest of the compilation for a single module. In every case, I'm expecting we still adhere to c89, especially in httpd-2.4 branch. A typical compilation (non-maintainer-mode) should catch most of those irregularities.
