Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] zram: Replace bit spinlocks with a spinlock_t.

[Sergey Senozhatsky]

On (24/07/08 12:03), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
[..]
> > I meant
> > 
> > 	for (size_t index = 0; index < num_pages; index++)
> > 
> > It's allowed and even recommended for a couple years already.
> 
> I wonder since when?  Do gcc 5.1 and clang 13.0.1 support this?

Since C99.  gcc 5.1/clang 13.0.1 are fine with that.  TIL.