git: 269b7d8ac1e5 - stable/12 - tftpd: tests: raise targeted cstd to c11

[Kyle Evans]

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 7:00 PM Ryan Libby <rlibby at freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 4:53 PM Kyle Evans <kevans at freebsd.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 6:50 PM Kyle Evans <kevans at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 6:38 PM Ryan Libby <rlibby at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 3:32 PM Kyle Evans <kevans at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm, I hadn't done this because we still have in-tree GCC4.2. Might want to go ahead and skip these tests entirely a level up for 4.2.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ah, thanks for the reminder.  I'll take another look re in-tree gcc.
> > > > Based on the other commits I've MFC'd, I'm pretty sure it's been
> > > > broken for months anyway, but I'll see what I can do if the fixes are
> > > > easy.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This should not be the case, we've been running arm/mips/etc. in CI up
> > > until the git transition.
> >
> > Sorry, arm is irrelevant for this branch- but mips/powerpc/sparc64.
>
> Perhaps only x86 was broken...
>
> How was tftpd/tests not already broken with alignas from r367305 which
> MFC'd r358556?
>

That is an incredibly good question. The latest build for powerpc
shows that it did in-fact descend into and build libexec/tftpd/tests

> In any case my plan right now is to try to remember the gcc 4.2
> voodoo, assess, and fix.  Please let me know if you think this needs
> immediate revert before then.
>

Nah, I wouldn't expend the energy on a revert, tbh. If you don't get
it figured out by tomorrow or so, I'll re-test and smack it.