[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Excplict document and check for C99 compiler (Was: Patch to allow co

From: Simon Sobisch
Subject: Re: Excplict document and check for C99 compiler (Was: Patch to allow compilation with old compilers (VS 2008))
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 23:00:23 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1

Hi Paul,

Am 18.09.2018 um 22:19 schrieb Paul Eggert:
>> What do you think about including the following to [second
>> patch ;-)]?
> I'm not sure it's worth the effort. Bison doesn't require full support
> for C99, and it would be a maintenance burden to document the exact set
> of C99 features it needs, a burden that would fall both on Bison
> maintainers (who would have to maintain a list of features that almost
> nobody cares about) and on Bison builders (who would have to read that
> list and assume it's important and run through the checklist, even
> though the list would be a waste of time for almost all of them).

I also don't think it is worth the effort to check for every C99 item
that is needed. But a minimal check like stdint.h, long long and
declaration-after-code wouldn't hurt, would it?

> I wouldn't even add info about which VS version is needed, since that
> will likely evolve too.

I wouldn't do this myself. If you have the check in configure and a note
in README (I personally *do* check the README before running configure
but not the FAQ) you have said enough :-)

> At most I would add a brief note to the FAQ that
> is easy to maintain as it avoids mentioning specific versions. I
> installed the attached as an attempt to do that.

The patch is fine, but I don't think it provides a reason to not install
my second patch for [the place for the check is likely
wrong, should be done after "try to find C99 compatibility-option"] and

Do you see any specific issues with the proposed changes?

Thank you for your response,

reply via email to

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