[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: c99

From: vishnu
Subject: Re: c99
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 09:22:05 -0700
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.20i

On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 11:18:16AM +0200, Guido Draheim wrote:
> address@hidden wrote:
> > 1. How do i request a C99 compiler?  Is there some variation on AC_PROG_CC?
> Do never ask for a version declaration, always ask for a feature
> you need - that is the basic principle of autoconf. Many features
> being declared as C99 were present in the 1994-version of a compiler
> too, e.g. { .field: value } was present a long time before in many
> many compilers - the C99 just made that official. So the question
> goes back to you - what *feature* do you want?

i'm using:

  for (gint xx=0; xx < 3; xx++) { .. }

and i generally mix variable declarations and statements as i
please instead of putting all the declarations near the open brace.

In terms of an autoconf probe, what do you suggest?

> Such a feature test can then be made independent of AC_PROG_CC, well,
> it would "exit" when the current `cc` or `gcc` does not have the
> feature you want - or do you want a macro that walks through several
> installed compilers and chooses the c99-one?

That seems like overkill.

> Well, that might be
> another page in the book, gnu hackers are usually okay with finding
> the gcc being usually the most uptodate... which is why AC_PROG_CC
> will usually prefer a gcc over vendors'cc when both are there...

Yah, fine.

> > 2. i see a link to "The Official Macro Archive" but it doesn't work.
> > Is there a mirror somewhere?
> you do not mean a link to but the link to the
> GNU Macro Archive at - right?

Oh, neat.  No, actually the link is:

i found this link on <>, so maybe
it needs updating.

Victory to the Divine Mother!!

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]