[LTP] [PATCH 2/3] fanotify10: Add support for multiple event files

[Richard Palethorpe]

Hello,

Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> writes:

> On Mon 21-11-22 10:33:13, Petr Vorel wrote:
>> Hi Jan, all,
>> 
>> > On Thu 17-11-22 16:58:50, Petr Vorel wrote:
>> > > Hi Jan, all,
>> 
>> > > > +#define foreach_path(tc, buf, pname) \
>> > > > +	for (int piter = 0; format_path_check((buf), (tc)->pname##_fmt,	\
>> > > Unfortunately we still support C99 due old compiler on CentOS 7,
>> > > therefore int piter needs to be defined outside of for loop.
>> 
>> > Hum, but variable declaration in the for loop is part of C99 standard (as
>> > the error message also says). So did you want to say you are compiling
>> > against C89 standard? And CentOS 7 ships with GCC 4.8.5 AFAICS which should
>> > be fully C99 compliant BTW. So what's the situation here?
>> I'm sorry, I didn't express clearly myself. Yes, 4.8.5 supports C99,
>> but the default is C90 [1].
>
> OK, thanks for explanation.
>
>> > That being said I can workaround the problem in the macro, it will just be
>> > somewhat uglier. So before doing that I'd like to understand whether
>> > following C89 is really required...
>> 
>> I'm don't remember why we have just not specified -std=... already, Cyril had
>> some objections, thus Cc him.
>> 
>> Cent0S EOL in 2024-06, we might reconsider to add -std=... to endup this agony
>> (errors like this often need to be fixed).
>> 
>> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.5/gcc/Standards.html
>
> Given Cyril's reply, should I rework my patch or are we fine with using
> C99?

Well -std=c99 doesn't work, but we can use -std=gnu99. If that doesn't
fix it then we should drop centos07 now IMO.

>
> 								Honza
>
>> > > fanotify10.c:470:2: error: ‘for’ loop initial declarations are only allowed in C99 mode
>> > >   for (int piter = 0; format_path_check((buf), (tc)->pname##_fmt, \
>> > >   ^
>> 
>> > > fanotify10.c:470:11: error: redefinition of ‘piter’
>> > >   for (int piter = 0; format_path_check((buf), (tc)->pname##_fmt, \
>> > >            ^
>> > > Kind regards,
>> > > Petr


-- 
Thank you,
Richard.