Eric Blake wrote: > On 07/18/2010 06:51 AM, Jay K wrote: >> >> C99ism in gzip 1.4 inflate.c: >> >> >> inflate.c: In function `inflate_codes': >> inflate.c:592: parse error before `unsigned' >> inflate.c:593: `delta' undeclared (first use in this function) >> inflate.c:593: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once >> inflate.c:593: for each function it appears in.) >> make[1]: *** [inflate.o] Error 1 >> make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/users/m3build/src/gzip-1.4' > > Thanks for the report. > > These days, declaration after statement (a C99 feature, required 11 > years ago!) is pretty common among compilers, even if they aren't fully > C99 compliant. We have already used this particular C99 feature in > coreutils for several years now, with very few complaints of an > inability to compile it (and for those complaining, the fixes necessary > to get back to pure C89 were rather trivial, as is the case with your > attached patch). While gnulib still caters to C89, I'm not sure whether > the gzip policy is to be this strict or to assume newer compilers along > the lines already assumed by coreutils. > >> >> I suggest maybe use autoconf to pass -std=c89 to gcc if it accepts it. > > That's only if we decide to make a policy of requiring that gzip must > still support C89. However, I'm not the primary maintainer, so Jim will > have to weigh in on this discussion.
Hi Jay, It looks like you're using gcc. If not, please describe the environment in which you are compiling: hardware, OS, compiler version, etc. While that sole decl-after-stmt is relatively new, I'm reluctant to accommodate ancient compilers unless there is a compelling argument. Why can't you accommodate this tiny part of c99?
