[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99 |
Date: |
Wed, 1 Dec 2004 16:22:55 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.1i |
* Roger Leigh wrote on Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 03:44:41PM CET:
>
>
> # AC_PROG_CC_C99
> # ----------------
> # If the C compiler in not in ISO C99 C mode by default, try to add an
> # option to output variable @code{CC} to make it so. This macro tries
> # various options that select ISO C99 C on some system or another. It
> # considers the compiler to be in ISO C99 C mode if it handles mixed
> # code and declarations, _Bool, inline and restrict.
> AC_DEFUN([AC_PROG_CC_C99],
> [AC_MSG_CHECKING([for $CC option to accept ISO C99 C])
I think instead of this line you want something like:
[AC_REQUIRE([AC_PROG_CC])dnl
AC_MSG_CHECKING([for $CC option to accept ISO C99 C])
> AC_CACHE_VAL(ac_cv_prog_cc_c99,
> [ac_cv_prog_cc_c99=no
> ac_save_CC=$CC
*snip rest*
Successfully sets -qlanglvl=extc99 with xlc v6, -std=c99 works with icc.
However, it also wrongly reports `none needed' for old gcc-2.95, which
fails to compile the test program with all of the options.
Is it considered better for the result of AC_PROG_CC_C99 to end up in
$CC or in $CFLAGS (I'm not really sure myself, just wondering)?
Regards,
Ralf
- AC_PROG_CC_C99, Roger Leigh, 2004/12/01
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99,
Ralf Wildenhues <=
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/12/01
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Steven G. Johnson, 2004/12/01
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Paul Eggert, 2004/12/01
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Roger Leigh, 2004/12/01
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Ralf Wildenhues, 2004/12/02
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Kevin P. Fleming, 2004/12/02
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Paul Eggert, 2004/12/02
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Kevin P. Fleming, 2004/12/02
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/12/02
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Paul Eggert, 2004/12/02