On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 05:41:36PM +0300, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> wrote: >> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 03:59:14PM +0300, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote: >>... >> >> Or, you asked "after what what compiler (plus language support >> >> library) should be considered as enough close to c99 for be counted as >> >> c99"? >> >> For me, the AC_PROG_CC_99 was good enough in that respect. >> > >> > You have ensured not to use any C99 features not tested by >> > AC_PROG_CC_C99 in your code? >> >> Are you indeed belive in compiler, which claims to be c99 and doesn't >> support _Bool and variadic macros? > > These two are documented to be tested by AC_PROG_CC_C99. >
Yes, I know. It were you, not me, who questioned my knowledge about what I do. -- Andrew W. Nosenko <andrew.w.nose...@gmail.com>
