On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 17:02, Paul Eggert <egg...@cs.ucla.edu> 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 <andrew.w.nose...@gmail.com>
