From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs-28 9c222b9: Port to C compilers that lack size-0 arrays Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2021 08:46:23 -0800 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: References: <83bl1y85np.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="19917"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.1 Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 03 17:47:09 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mtBiH-0004y4-Ud for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 03 Dec 2021 17:47:09 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46984 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mtBiG-0007aZ-DA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 03 Dec 2021 11:47:08 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:34306) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mtBhe-0006vH-6E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Dec 2021 11:46:30 -0500 Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:42058) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mtBhb-0002g7-GL; Fri, 03 Dec 2021 11:46:29 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42CE71600C3; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 08:46:24 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id ibexs9Y6BhxE; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 08:46:23 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A2D41600C5; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 08:46:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id F-8jyWREy6yC; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 08:46:23 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.9] (cpe-172-91-119-151.socal.res.rr.com [172.91.119.151]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 652FF1600C3; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 08:46:23 -0800 (PST) Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <83bl1y85np.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=131.179.128.68; envelope-from=eggert@cs.ucla.edu; helo=zimbra.cs.ucla.edu X-Spam_score_int: -50 X-Spam_score: -5.1 X-Spam_bar: ----- X-Spam_report: (-5.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.938, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:280847 Archived-At: On 12/3/21 00:16, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > We have already started the pretest. Yes, and the pretest is why I found the problems I fixed: I built and tested on less-common platforms that I normally don't bother with. > How serious is the problem this attempts to solve, and what bad things > will happen if we release Emacs 28.1 without those changes? What I experienced was a ton of diagnostics with both the Oracle Solaris and the IBM AIX C compilers, which made it difficult for me to see the real problems on those platforms (of which there were some). Although I was able to finish the builds anyway, the old code was a clear violation of the C89/C99/C11 standards and a good indication that there will be problems building on other less-common platforms that I don't have access to. Conforming to the C standard doesn't affect behavior here (it possibly doesn't even change the machine code, though I didn't check this) so I considered the change to be a safe prophylactic.