[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>

reply via email to

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