Update of sr #110451 (project autoconf):
Status: None => Need Info
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comment #2:
The root cause seems to be that AC_PROG_CC(_C99) *intentionally* doesn't use
-xc99 with Sun's compilers. The test for C99 compliance was made pickier in
Autoconf 2.70, and -D_STDC_C99, which it does use, is no longer enough for
Sun's compiler to pass the test. Commentary in c.m4 says
# Solaris -D_STDC_C99=
# Note: acc's -xc99 option uses linker magic to define the external
# symbol __xpg4 as if by "int __xpg4 = 1;", which enables C99
# behavior for C library functions. This is not wanted here,
# because it means that a single module compiled with -xc99 alters
# C runtime behavior for the entire program, not for just the
# module. Instead, define the (private) symbol _STDC_C99, which
# suppresses a bogus failure in <stdbool.h>. The resulting compiler
# passes the test case here, and that's good enough.
# For more, please see the thread starting at:
# https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2010-12/msg00059.html
It's possible that this decision should be revisited; current-generation C
programs may well want the C99-compliant library. On the other hand, the
library compatibility issues raised in that old thread are serious. I would
prefer for you and other active users of Solaris to make the call.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/support/?110451>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
