[Top][All Lists]

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

[Pan-devel] Re: Ping K.Haley: latest testing branch updates, I get comp

From: SciFi
Subject: [Pan-devel] Re: Ping K.Haley: latest testing branch updates, I get compiler error in line 742: ‘_c lose’ not declared.
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:51:49 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies; GIT 25eeb7f testing)

Here is what my system’s -std section of “man gcc-4.2” says:


           Determine the language standard.  This option is currently only 
supported when compiling C or C++.  A value for this option must be provided; 
possible values are

               ISO C90 (same as -ansi).

               ISO C90 as modified in amendment 1.

               ISO C99.  Note that this standard is not yet fully supported; 
see <> for more information.  The 
names c9x and iso9899:199x are deprecated.

               Default, ISO C90 plus GNU extensions (including some C99 

               ISO C99 plus GNU extensions.  When ISO C99 is fully implemented 
in GCC, this will become the default.  The name gnu9x is deprecated.

               The 1998 ISO C++ standard plus amendments.

               The same as -std=c++98 plus GNU extensions.  This is the default 
for C++ code.

Even when this option is not specified, you can still use some of the features 
of newer standards in so far as they do not conflict with previous C standards. 
 For example, you may use "__restrict__" even when -std=c99 is not specified.

The -std options specifying some version of ISO C have the same effects as 
-ansi, except that features that were not in ISO C90 but are in the specified 
version (for example, // comments and the "inline" keyword in ISO C99) are not 


Likewise under the chapter “Options Controlling the Preprocessor”.

This (4.2.1) is the latest “official builds” of GNU gcc we have, I believe
even under “Snow Leopard 10.6.x” [BTW I’m biting my tongue here very hard].

When a programmer / developer advertises compatibility with OSX (or /any/
system, for that matter), he needs to know how to treat different
compilers this way.
He needs to flat state which compiler(s) /will/ work with his code.

It’s common sense in the world of FOSS.

FWIW the man–pages for various levels of GNU–gcc are on-line AFAICT,
so this cannot be much of a big secret.  ;)

Pan didn’t need the absolute /latest/ compiler AFAIK in the years I’ve
been using it.  We’ve been “getting by” on whatever Apple provides
officially (altho reluctantly).  ;)

BTW the ‘devel’ mail-lists (and bug–trackers etc) are where we should
report these kinds of problems — I for one am not ‘angry’; I am merely
reporting the issue, and discussing it.

I’m dismissing your discussion about what Mr.Kerr is actually doing these
days (even tho I know about it, remember I also read these lists via GMane)
— I was merely talking about the /historical/ reasons he did not want to
mess with multi-threading (and other topics) in this Pan rewrite, topics
which make Pan not–so–great in the world of Usenet and user–friendliness
etc (and admittedly belongs under a separate message–thread that I tried
to initiate quite some time back).


reply via email to

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