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 () escribió:
>
>
> > On 1 Sep 2018, at 19:22, Uxio Prego 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
