Re: [PATCH] media: do not use C++ style comments in uapi headers
From: Masahiro Yamada
Date: Tue Jun 04 2019 - 09:36:57 EST
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 9:48 PM Masahiro Yamada
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:55 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:23 PM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 20:13 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > > On the other hand, uapi headers are written in more strict C, where
> > > > the C++ comment style is forbidden.
> > >
> > > Is this a real problem for any toolchain?
> > There is likely some code that is built with -Wpedandic -Werror --std=c89
> > or similar. Since glibc allows this combination for its own headers, it seems
> > best to also allow it in kernel headers that may be included by libc headers
> > or by applications, at least where it does not hurt.
> > Realistically though, we probably assume c99 or gnu89 in user space
> > headers anyway, since there is no 'long long' in earlier standards.
> > Arnd
> In fact, I detected this issue by the following patch:
> When I worked on it, I wondered which
> c-dialect flags should be used.
> This code:
> > # Unlike the kernel space, uapi headers are written in more strict C.
> > # - Forbid C++ style comments
> > # - Use '__inline', '__asm__' instead of 'inline', 'asm'
> > #
> > # -std=c90 (equivalent to -ansi) catches the violation of those.
> > # We cannot go as far as adding -Wpedantic since it emits too many warnings.
> > #
> > # REVISIT: re-consider the proper set of compiler flags for uapi compile-test.
> > UAPI_CFLAGS := -std=c90 -Wpedantic -Wall -Werror=implicit-function-declaration
I got rid of -Wpedantic in the submitted patch.
Sorry if I confused you.