Re: Selecting a C++ standard

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 06:45:01PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Real "buildable by C89 or later" is rarely used, since due to lack of 
> > long long you have no guaranteed 64bit integer type in C89.
> 
> Almost none of the software that I work on requires a 64-bit integer type.
> (C89 or later is also my default target for the software I write.)

I just tried to build remctl and lbcd with CC="gcc -pedantic-errors", 
and both failed due to them not being pure C89 (some errors are at the 
bottom of this email).

I get the point that a --disable-compiler-mode-setting flag to 
configure would be useful for such "use the strictest C89 mode
in the compiler" compiles.

Are there any other use cases or problems I miss?

> Russ Allbery (address@hidden)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

cu
Adrian


<--  snip  -->


server/remctld.c:53:1: error: string length ‘610’ is greater than the length 
‘509’ ISO C90 compilers are required to support [-Woverlength-strings]

protocol.h:21:34: error: comma at end of enumerator list [-pedantic]
protocol.h:30:34: error: comma at end of enumerator list [-pedantic]

./check_reply.c:28:10: error: initializer element is not computable at load time
./http.c:35:12: error: initializer element is not computable at load time
./monlist.c:86:10: error: initializer element is not computable at load time