I agree! There are few places where designated initializer list are used in
the common code (in arch/ and boards/ they can be used without further
concern), so it can be fixed at no time.
In the other hand this flexibility is the root causes for confusion, mainly
for new contributors. It does appear orthogonal that part of the code are
using C99/C11 and part are using C89.
BR,
Alan
On Saturday, January 8, 2022, Petro Karashchenko <
petro.karashche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do not think that code duplication is a good idea. I'd better search
> common code for designated initializer list and rework it (remove) to get
> back C89 style.
>
> Best regards,
> Petro
>
> On Sat, Jan 8, 2022, 3:54 PM Alin Jerpelea <jerpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > that code duplication is the way I was thinking if we want to be able to
> > use both compilers and keep all platforms
> > Best Regards
> > Alin
> >
> > On Sat, 8 Jan 2022, 14:42 Alan Carvalho de Assis, <acas...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Alin,
> > >
> > > using a menu option in this case will not work because the point is
> > > not passing a std c99 flag to the compiler, but using some C99
> > > features in the source code to simplify it.
> > >
> > > For example: the designated initializer list:
> > >
> > > struct test_s test =
> > > {
> > > .second = 2,
> > > .first = 1
> > > };
> > >
> > > It is not supported by C89 and adding an entry in the menuconfig will
> > > require duplication in the source code to support both standards (C89
> > > and C99).
> > >
> > > BR,
> > >
> > > Alan
> > >
> > > On 1/8/22, Alin Jerpelea <jerpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In my opinion we should try to keep all platforms and avoid breaking
> > them
> > > > by adopting new standards
> > > >
> > > > An option would be to add the C99 as a menu option while keeping the
> > > > current compilers compatibility
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards
> > > > Alin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 8 Jan 2022, 13:53 Gregory Nutt, <spudan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> z80 holds all 8-bit ZiLOG architectures. That means
> > > >>
> > > >> z80 using the SDCC compiler
> > > >> z180 using the SDCC compiler
> > > >> ez80 which normally uses the ZiLOG compiler, but there is an
> > > experimental
> > > >> version of GCC for the ez80
> > > >>
> > > >> z16 uses only ZiLOG compiler
> > > >>
> > > >> Also consider SH1
> > > >>
> > > >> This will also require changes to INVIOLABLES.md and the coding
> > > standard.
> > > >> I would also recommend a formal vote to assure that you are
> following
> > > the
> > > >> will of the user base and not a personal agenda. There used to be a
> > > >> small
> > > >> but important group of retro computer folk using NuttX; this
> > eliminates
> > > >> support for them. There is language in the INVIOLABLES that is there
> > > >> specifically to protect them from actions like this.
> > > >>
> > > >> I have not heard of anyone using these architectures recently. I
> > would
> > > >> say
> > > >> that only ez80 is active with active development boards. There are
> > > >> occasional developments with z180-like hardware.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 11:40 PM Xiang Xiao <
> xiaoxiang781...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Ceva we just added this week also supports C99, so we just need to
> > > >> > check
> > > >> > avr, misoc, or1k, z16 and z80.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 1:35 PM Petro Karashchenko <
> > > >> > petro.karashche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > In addition I just checked latest GCC with HC12 support is 3.0.4
> > > >> version.
> > > >> > > It have C99 integrated. Will check with AVR32, but will probably
> > > need
> > > >> > some
> > > >> > > help with others.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Best regards,
> > > >> > > Petro
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Sat, Jan 8, 2022, 7:15 AM Petro Karashchenko <
> > > >> > > petro.karashche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Hi,
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > What about inline functions? Those are also a part on C99.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Are those old architectures checked by the CI? I mean do we
> > have a
> > > >> > proof
> > > >> > > > that those are still compilable with the latest release?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Best regards,
> > > >> > > > Petro
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Sat, Jan 8, 2022, 6:37 AM Xiang Xiao <
> > > xiaoxiang781...@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 6:29 AM Petro Karashchenko <
> > > >> > > >> petro.karashche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>> Hello team,
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> Recently I mr. @Xiang Xiao <xiaoxiang781...@gmail.com> had
> a
> > > >> > > discussion
> > > >> > > >>> in one of the PR's related to C89 code compliance.
> > Particularly
> > > >> > > related to
> > > >> > > >>> initializing a structure by field names (designated
> > > >> > > >>> initializers).
> > > >> > Mr.
> > > >> > > @Xiang
> > > >> > > >>> Xiao <xiaoxiang781...@gmail.com> pointed out that "for the
> > > common
> > > >> > code
> > > >> > > >>> it is better to avoid C99 only features".
> > > >> > > >>> I examined the current NuttX code and see that currently
> > common
> > > >> code
> > > >> > is
> > > >> > > >>> far away from C89 already and things like "<stdbool.h>",
> > > >> > > "<inttypes.h>",
> > > >> > > >>> "snprintf", "designated initializers", "__VA_ARGS__"
> (variadic
> > > >> macro)
> > > >> > > are
> > > >> > > >>> deeply embedded into the code.
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >> We need separate the features that come from the compiler and
> > the
> > > >> > > >> standard library. Since the libc is provided by NuttX self:
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> 1. The header files(e.g.stdbool.h, intttyes.h) and
> > > >> > > >> function(e.g.
> > > >> > > >> snprintf) can be used in common code since NuttX can
> provide
> > > >> > > >> the
> > > >> > > >> implementation for all arch even the arch use a very old
> > > >> > > >> compiler
> > > >> > > >> 2. The preprocessor (e.g. __VA_ARGS__) or language(
> > > designated
> > > >> > > >> initializers) feature need to avoid or incorporate into
> the
> > > >> > > conditional
> > > >> > > >> macro
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> .
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>> I would like to come up with the suggestion to make C99 as a
> > > >> > > >>> prerequisite for the compiler that is used to build NuttX
> > code.
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> As Greg said, if compilers used on all arch supported by
> NuttX
> > > >> support
> > > >> > > >> C99, there is no reason to limit us to C89. The compiler
> status
> > > is
> > > >> > > >> a
> > > >> > > >> keypoint.
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> Best regards,
> > > >> > > >>> Petro
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
