Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99

[Paul Eggert]

Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> writes:

>> 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.

C99 doesn't require prototypes, so that alone doesn't violate the
principle cited above.

However, I agree that the coding standards use of "error" are not
compatible with C99 for a different reason -- implicit int -- where
the coding standards already suggest conforming to C99 and so the
"error" example doesn't even follow the coding standards.  I've just
sent off a bug report about this to bug-standards, and CC'ed it to
<address@hidden>.