[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99
From: |
Andrew W. Nosenko |
Subject: |
Re: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99 |
Date: |
Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:57:57 +0300 |
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 17:02, Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 09/30/11 02:06, Bruno Haible wrote:
>> -- Macro: AC_PROG_CC_STDC
>> If the C compiler cannot compile ISO Standard C (currently C99),
>> ...
>>
>> sounds like this macro will then be modified to enable C1X instead of C99.
>
> Yes.
>
>> But I expect that many packages will not need this.
>
> It shouldn't hurt if they use it. No packages that I know
> of require C99 and break with C1x. On the contrary, the
> more typical case is a package that uses C1x features if
> available.
>
> The macro AC_PROG_CC_STDC means "Use the most-recent
> version of C that's supported", not "Require the most-recent
> version of C and fail if it's not supported". All
Assuming that AC_PROG_CC_C99 is not available (e.g. doesn't exists and
never existed), and only one macro is AC_PROG_CC_STDC, how I should to
express that "c99 is required"? Or "c99 or better is required"?
Especially is assume that "current" standard version is some imaginary
future C2x?
The problem that AC_PROG_CC_STDC allowed to fallback to any STD
version, but has no way to indicate how deep it falled back.
> gnulib modules (and all packages) should work in such an
> environment.
>
> I'm assuming that C1x will be close to its draft; if it changes,
> so that C1x is undesirable in important and plausible cases, we'd
> have to address that. I doubt whether this will be an issue,
> though.
>
>
--
Andrew W. Nosenko <address@hidden>
- Fwd: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99, Gary V. Vaughan, 2011/09/28
- Re: Fwd: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99, Paul Eggert, 2011/09/28
- Re: Fwd: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99, Bruno Haible, 2011/09/28
- Re: Fwd: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99, Paul Eggert, 2011/09/28
- Re: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99, Gary V. Vaughan, 2011/09/29
- Re: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99, Bruno Haible, 2011/09/29
- Re: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99, Paul Eggert, 2011/09/29
- Re: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99, Bruno Haible, 2011/09/30
- Re: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99, Paul Eggert, 2011/09/30
- Re: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99,
Andrew W. Nosenko <=
- Re: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99, Paul Eggert, 2011/09/30
- Re: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99, Gary V. Vaughan, 2011/09/29
- Re: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99, Bruno Haible, 2011/09/30
- Re: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99, Gary V. Vaughan, 2011/09/30
- Re: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99, Gary V. Vaughan, 2011/09/29
- Re: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99, Bruno Haible, 2011/09/30
- Re: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99, Gary V. Vaughan, 2011/09/29
- Re: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99, Bruno Haible, 2011/09/30