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. > AC_PROG_CC_C99 in autoconf 2.69 has a documented semantics what C99 > features are guaranteed to be available when ac_cv_prog_cc_c99 is > not "no". True. And those semantics still hold for git Autoconf, even if they're marked as obsolete. > Perhaps mode setting and feature reporting to autoconf users should be > less coupled for C11? Yes, quite possibly. > In any case, autoconf has to provide an easy and documented way for > users to get information on the C11 features available. That should be a further set of macros, one for each such feature that can't easily be tested with what Autoconf has now. (There's no need for Autoconf to worry about static_assert, for example, since code can just use '#ifdef static_assert').
