On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:18:03AM +0300, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Paul Eggert <egg...@cs.ucla.edu> wrote: > > Yup, macros that invoke AC_PROG_CC_C89 and AC_PROG_CC_C99 > > are trouble. They're trouble now, and they'll continue to > > be trouble. It's not clear how to fix this, other than > > to advise people to avoid those macros, which the patch > > does in the manual. > > > > OK. Assuming that AC_PROG_CC_C99 deprecated and then removed, how I > supposed to express "give me c99 or higher compiler or raise error if > there only c89 or lower compiler found"? In another words: How can I > set the _lower_ bound of C standard support, after that configure > should stop trying and just raises an error?
The problem here are the exact semantics of "c99 or higher compiler". Take gcc as an example: - in it's default (non-strict) C89 mode it supports some C99 features like "long long int" - no version of gcc so far supports C99 completely [1] What exactly are your usecases where you need to know the mode of the compiler, and not whether some specific C99 features are supported? cu Adrian [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/c99status.html -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
