> On 11 Nov 2022, at 03:25, Zack Weinberg <z...@owlfolio.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022, at 10:18 PM, Sam James wrote: >>> On 5 Nov 2022, at 22:37, Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> >>> I would send a patch for the original issue but I'm wondering how to handle >>> freestanding (see big comment above _AC_C_C89_TEST_GLOBALS). > > Yeah, we can't include <stdlib.h> here, but it should be OK to add a manual > declaration of free (as I did in bf5a75...) -- there was already a manual > declaration of malloc, and free doesn't even need size_t. > >
Thanks for doing that. >>> We need another one (<assert.h>) I think for _Static_assert in >>> _AC_C_C11_TEST_GLOBALS too, up until C23? > > I think this should be fine as is; in C11, _Static_assert is a keyword / > special form, so it's safe to use without <assert.h>. IIUC the change in C23 > is to make static_assert also available without <assert.h>? > Oh right! We're all good then. Cheers, sam
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
