Merge branch 'ab/coding-guidelines-c99' into maint-2.38

Update CodingGuidelines to clarify what features to use and avoid
in C99.

* ab/coding-guidelines-c99:
  CodingGuidelines: recommend against unportable C99 struct syntax
  CodingGuidelines: mention C99 features we can't use
  CodingGuidelines: allow declaring variables in for loops
  CodingGuidelines: mention dynamic C99 initializer elements
  CodingGuidelines: update for C99

2 files changed, 25 insertions, 17 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
index 9fca21cc5f..1d95a142b2 100644
--- a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
+++ b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
@@ -204,10 +204,19 @@ For C programs:
    by e.g. "echo DEVELOPER=1 >>config.mak".
 
  - We try to support a wide range of C compilers to compile Git with,
-   including old ones.  You should not use features from newer C
+   including old ones.  As of Git v2.35.0 Git requires C99 (we check
+   "__STDC_VERSION__"). You should not use features from a newer C
    standard, even if your compiler groks them.
 
-   There are a few exceptions to this guideline:
+   New C99 features have been phased in gradually, if something's new
+   in C99 but not used yet don't assume that it's safe to use, some
+   compilers we target have only partial support for it. These are
+   considered safe to use:
+
+   . since around 2007 with 2b6854c863a, we have been using
+     initializer elements which are not computable at load time. E.g.:
+
+	const char *args[] = {"constant", variable, NULL};
 
    . since early 2012 with e1327023ea, we have been using an enum
      definition whose last element is followed by a comma.  This, like
@@ -223,18 +232,24 @@ For C programs:
    . since early 2021 with 765dc168882, we have been using variadic
      macros, mostly for printf-like trace and debug macros.
 
-   These used to be forbidden, but we have not heard any breakage
-   report, and they are assumed to be safe.
+   . since late 2021 with 44ba10d6, we have had variables declared in
+     the for loop "for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)".
+
+   New C99 features that we cannot use yet:
+
+   . %z and %zu as a printf() argument for a size_t (the %z being for
+     the POSIX-specific ssize_t). Instead you should use
+     printf("%"PRIuMAX, (uintmax_t)v).  These days the MSVC version we
+     rely on supports %z, but the C library used by MinGW does not.
+
+   . Shorthand like ".a.b = *c" in struct initializations is known to
+     trip up an older IBM XLC version, use ".a = { .b = *c }" instead.
+     See the 33665d98 (reftable: make assignments portable to AIX xlc
+     v12.01, 2022-03-28).
 
  - Variables have to be declared at the beginning of the block, before
    the first statement (i.e. -Wdeclaration-after-statement).
 
- - Declaring a variable in the for loop "for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)"
-   is still not allowed in this codebase.  We are in the process of
-   allowing it by waiting to see that 44ba10d6 (revision: use C99
-   declaration of variable in for() loop, 2021-11-14) does not get
-   complaints.  Let's revisit this around November 2022.
-
  - NULL pointers shall be written as NULL, not as 0.
 
  - When declaring pointers, the star sides with the variable
diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c
index 36e31942ce..8f2623b3b5 100644
--- a/revision.c
+++ b/revision.c
@@ -47,13 +47,6 @@ static inline int want_ancestry(const struct rev_info *revs);
 void show_object_with_name(FILE *out, struct object *obj, const char *name)
 {
 	fprintf(out, "%s ", oid_to_hex(&obj->oid));
-	/*
-	 * This "for (const char *p = ..." is made as a first step towards
-	 * making use of such declarations elsewhere in our codebase.  If
-	 * it causes compilation problems on your platform, please report
-	 * it to the Git mailing list at git@vger.kernel.org. In the meantime,
-	 * adding -std=gnu99 to CFLAGS may help if you are with older GCC.
-	 */
 	for (const char *p = name; *p && *p != '\n'; p++)
 		fputc(*p, out);
 	fputc('\n', out);