Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Paul Eggert wrote on Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 09:53:52PM CET:
> 
> Personally, I don't advocate assuming C99 just yet -- only one C99
> compiler exists right now, as far as I know, and it's not free -- but
> other people might reasonably disagree and Autoconf can cater to them
> too.  Also, people can assume some C99 features, if they like.  It's
> up to them.
> 
> However, today I do advocate writing code that is portable to C99.
> That is why it's OK to change AC_PROG_CC_STDC to prefer C99 to C89, if
> both are available.  People's code shouldn't assume the features of
> C89 that are incompatible with C99.

This is a good notion, IMVHO.  Unfortunately, it conflicts with
  (standards.info)CPU Portability
where the infamous `error' example is advocated to be used without
prototype.  Maybe one should try to address this as well.

Regards,
Ralf