Lighttpd

Isn't the purpose of that flag to be able to use C99 features?
What's the reason to support such an old gcc version?

Olaf-van-der-Spek wrote:

Isn't the purpose of that flag to be able to use C99 features?
What's the reason to support such an old gcc version?

Except there is no need for C99 code in lighttpd.

Its the system compiler and the lighttpd code compiles and works
fine. I don't see any good reason not to support it.

brad@comstyle.com wrote:

Olaf-van-der-Spek wrote:

Isn't the purpose of that flag to be able to use C99 features?
What's the reason to support such an old gcc version?

Except there is no need for C99 code in lighttpd.

Its the system compiler and the lighttpd code compiles and works
fine. I don't see any good reason not to support it.

system compiler on what OS?
is the OS still supported by its vendor?
i mean 2.95 was like 10-11years ago.

darix wrote:

brad@comstyle.com wrote:

Olaf-van-der-Spek wrote:

Isn't the purpose of that flag to be able to use C99 features?
What's the reason to support such an old gcc version?

Except there is no need for C99 code in lighttpd.

Its the system compiler and the lighttpd code compiles and works
fine. I don't see any good reason not to support it.

system compiler on what OS?
is the OS still supported by its vendor?
i mean 2.95 was like 10-11years ago.

OpenBSD/sparc.

Yes. otherwise I wouldn't be submitting the diff.

Your point being? It builds the code just fine
and lighttpd runs just fine. What is the problem?

brad@comstyle.com wrote:

Except there is no need for C99 code in lighttpd.

In that case, what's the point of setting -std=gnu99 at all?

Olaf-van-der-Spek wrote:

brad@comstyle.com wrote:

Except there is no need for C99 code in lighttpd.

In that case, what's the point of setting -std=gnu99 at all?

lighttpd builds just fine without it with the newer versions of gcc which support the -std=gnu99 flag (gcc3, gcc4) and it just hides the issue mentioned in my other ticket.

So I don't really see the point of that particular flag being added to CFLAGS when there is no C99 code within the lighttpd code base.

Then why doesn't your patch just remove the flag?

Olaf-van-der-Spek wrote:

Then why doesn't your patch just remove the flag?

No particular reason. I could do that as well and would prefer to. The autoconf code was copied from another project which is in the same position of having no C99 code and compiling fine with gcc2.95, although it is setting the flag conditionally for newer gcc.

I just tried compiling without -std=gnu99, and gcc threw a lot of warnings like:

src/mod_dirlisting.c:499: warning: string length ‘641’ is greater than the length ‘509’ ISO C90 compilers are required to support
/usr/include/mysql/mysql.h:128: warning: ISO C90 does not support ‘long long’
src/mod_status.c:213: warning: string length ‘767’ is greater than the length ‘509’ ISO C90 compilers are required to support
src/array.c:316: warning: ISO C90 does not support the ‘z’ gnu_printf length modifier

• we need the flag
• there is no good reason to support such old compilers - if you are on such a platform you should be prepared to handle such things yourself.
  I really don't want to complicate the auto* stuff further.