[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: AC_C_NORETURN macro?

From: Vincent Lefevre
Subject: Re: AC_C_NORETURN macro?
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:16:37 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21-6201-vl-r48020 (2011-12-20)

On 2012-04-26 09:27:08 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I've done the experiment from time to time of supporting -ansi or
> --std=c99, but even for small code bases I consider it the kind of thing
> that one does as a hobby or out of curiosity.  It's not a very good way to
> actually get work done and write code that is portable on a practical
> level (meaning that people on multiple UNIX platforms can just run
> ./configure && make).

In MPFR, we use that together with -pedantic-errors mainly for testing
purpose, to ensure that MPFR still builds on a C90 or C99 platform,
e.g. all non-portable extensions that we use should be optional.
And conversely, we do not want to require -ansi or --std=c99, because
extensions are useful for efficiency or for some special features
(e.g. logging).

Vincent Lefèvre <address@hidden> - Web: <>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

reply via email to

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