Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> People's code shouldn't assume the features of >> C89 that are incompatible with C99. > > This is a good notion, IMVHO. Unfortunately, it conflicts with > (standards.info)CPU Portability > where the infamous `error' example is advocated to be used without > prototype.
C99 doesn't require prototypes, so that alone doesn't violate the principle cited above. However, I agree that the coding standards use of "error" are not compatible with C99 for a different reason -- implicit int -- where the coding standards already suggest conforming to C99 and so the "error" example doesn't even follow the coding standards. I've just sent off a bug report about this to bug-standards, and CC'ed it to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
