[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99

From: Paul Eggert
Subject: Re: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:42:29 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110906 Fedora/3.1.14-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.14

On 09/29/11 02:14, Bruno Haible wrote:
> But switching the compiler to a different standards-compliance
> mode is a global effect. I was not sure whether it would have some negative
> side effects on some platforms.
> On the other hand, we do it in module 'stdarg' for 5 years now, and it has
> not caused bug reports.

I agree on both points.  I think the only thing that's saved us is that
most gnulib-using projects already ask for C99 compatibility if available,
for the usual reasons.

On 09/28/11 22:28, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> The patch is very straight forward:
> ...
> m4_define([AC_PROG_CC_C99])
> ])

I don't think the autoconf patch would be that easy, as one would
need to handle a mixture of AC_PROG_CC_C99, AC_PROG_CC_C89, and
AC_PROG_CC_STDC calls.  Again, I expect the only thing that's
saved us is that people just use AC_PROG_CC_STDC.  Hmm, maybe
Autoconf should deprecate the other two macros?

reply via email to

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