I suspect builtin [macOS High Sierra] Clang maybe defaults to C89, or needs some kind of flag in order to use C99? By contrast, recent Clang claims to be trying GNU C11 first: https://clang.llvm.org/compatibility.html :/
However, as long as Bison doesn't use C99, there's no real reason to use C99 for a program using Bison - there would be some platform the program would'nt build right out of the box - isn't that the very reason Bison isn't using C99? If one wants their software to be used, then why obstruct building needlessly? El sáb., 1 sept. 2018 a las 18:06, Hans Åberg (<haber...@telia.com>) escribió: > > > > On 1 Sep 2018, at 19:22, Uxio Prego <uxio.pr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > For a couple miscellaneous reasons I have seldom used custom > > installs of (then) newer GCC versions to `/usr/local/`. > > > > If I ever need a newer or more canonical Clang for some reason, > > I'll be sure to remember your words. > > One reason to use GCC and/or the real Clang is C++17. Apart from that, if you > develop, they are slightly different in warnings, so for that reason it can > be good > to try both. > > _______________________________________________ help-bison@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison
