From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 823EF1F852 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2022 02:15:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234120AbiAPCPt (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Jan 2022 21:15:49 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41738 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234112AbiAPCPs (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Jan 2022 21:15:48 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-x529.google.com (mail-ed1-x529.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::529]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8937C061574 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2022 18:15:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ed1-x529.google.com with SMTP id q25so49797334edb.2 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2022 18:15:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tQhSm9oiY0QWgYQy1iTvpfPE/8FxRmdpViTr/jQXOCE=; b=jqDQuhrsNfoKQRu7ErHJgXrH/okmHJt1WHJV3DRZkE2UODYSH7JWaX0wHfXcBGM072 +17SZqy8gI6jgNm7mlDdXfx/rnoS9C8HJfPTSU0hAQflKrnwC9zbeiDnYuLOuUafzrTi gxZR6ZuWWjCkUEg4QTNZeIri+yyIqACP3afPY7ZxyepVCUwi3/g66+TeBEvyR0zGlNyk 2fonGZYNE+b9eHcHBXrZSbm3AfJ6+FT8PlLA5XL8NEBGr3ugRLqjM/C41FgnrNU9vjGv +GgdXh0pEEI/FwohdQTe/frVaddh3FNRVGxoWc72kx/rISViJosSPxeY3vBYo3LCfiKQ 4mPA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tQhSm9oiY0QWgYQy1iTvpfPE/8FxRmdpViTr/jQXOCE=; b=skhcm1ajygGEQtW1aSBXJHJWAJ3B6A0fac6tdYFeTp9a92Jco4UHs1fCKuGKV/MZgN +tGoCeZ5lGmu41wfi26pAFNDzHNdNhi0Jk7/jYtvLBM1nu1ArXujvKEiF6HVnK3LyRLE zajDlnHcS0UPEtH3QD76Af6PezTP2RimlREJ8uFHXiR2wzt0gk+DWdhvZ5BtuvVDdJvq xFkPn8HAFdrqcxk1Nb8swemsIloBJVVsdoXMlX13WSnLZix6t9l4oZvSlxZAk8I69G8J tUNvMpn49yhmdSmHTwLpaweo2AzFR+MLwiPA+K7hUkWXFQFKiqLSQjaBpoGMuT/4TShI ohig== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531wmoct67gPLqcZ22cK23r3kI9dzk5o8odtNyfeV6e3DSak+/xu UpMiofpmqgZlqlBMfv7TIbhzHxRce6uwso/uTyU4Bgry X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxLQYjU/jId1biflWNRVSiNiczdAHOP7d08cdu3PQWSmVyR5Xv3wM41XWH5PNlg8WQEfSgqI/AqQIriL8TuB9s= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:16d1:: with SMTP id r17mr5369864edx.284.1642299346342; Sat, 15 Jan 2022 18:15:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: David Aguilar Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2022 18:15:10 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2022, #03; Thu, 13) To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Git Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 11:15 AM Junio C Hamano wrote: > > David Aguilar writes: > > > I ran into the c99 test balloon. I get the (expected?) c99 build > > errors and an uncompress2 build error with RHEL7.9's stock gcc 4.8.5. > > > > Are we dropping support for RHEL7.9? > > No. Our expectation is that those who care about various distros > and platforms supply patches like ... > > > Using NO_UNCOMPRESS2=YesPlease and CFLAGS += -std=c99 in config.mak > > ... this, but not locallly but to config.mak.uname, to help the > users and builders on their favorite systems. It is better done > sooner rather than later. > > > works but I'm not sure if we actually expect users to deal with those > > details themselves. > > Users would not have to, as long as somebody else on the list uses > the smea system as theirs cares enough to supply such patches to > config.mak.uname. > > > Sorry for being out of the loop on the plan for older toolchains, but > > I wasn't sure if we should be expecting a patch that configures the > > default flags so that things build out of the box again or if this is > > considered the new status quo and we're okay regressing? > > Obviously the former. This is a team effort and everybody who finds > new issues is very appreciated to chip in. > Thanks for verifying; patch sent. A simple $(uname_R) check worked for me so hopefully that's not too much cruft to carry around for a few years. cheers, -- David