On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 06:12:55PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: >> On 09/27/2012 10:04 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote: >> > I merely wanted to point out that there can be a difference in what >> > glibc provides when we end up with gnu99 instead of gnu11. >> >> Yes. And programs using Autoconf will surely prefer the gnu11 >> version, which is why defaulting to gnu11 is a win. >>... > > Which brings us back to why I call it a bug that gnu99 passes the > current C11 test. >
Exuse me, but if compiler+language support library passes all feature checks, which are essencial to name this pair c11-compatible, then why bother? If c11-compatibility implies more than these checks, then why not extend the checks for cover these essencial features? But please, dont start the messing with brain-dameged defines like __STDC_VERSION__. After all, Autoconf is all about the actual features of compilation environment, not about "branding labels" on that environment. -- Andrew W. Nosenko <andrew.w.nose...@gmail.com>
