* Paul Eggert wrote on Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 10:56:29PM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Have you checked there is no compiler which will compile your test
> > program but not general C99 in its `C89 plus extensions' mode?
>
> The Autoconf Way is to first put the compiler i
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Have you checked there is no compiler which will compile your test
> program but not general C99 in its `C89 plus extensions' mode?
The Autoconf Way is to first put the compiler into "C99 plus
extensions" mode, and then to check how much of C99 (and h
* Roger Leigh wrote on Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 10:59:45PM CET:
>
> So would something like my proposed AC_PROG_CC_C99 macro be good as a
> start? It would be optional, and simply check if a compiler
> previously found with AC_PROG_CC can be put into a C99 mode. This
> would be good for what I want-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Jarc) writes:
> E.g., in C90, size_t fits in unsigned long, but in C99, it may not.
This is not a problem for GNU or POSIX-compliant software. The GNU
Coding Standards say that you need not worry about this misfeature of
C99. Also, POSIX 1003.1-2001 requires implementati
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 10:43:19PM CET:
>
> The use of C++-style comments in open source C code is suspect.
> IBM's AIX C compiler does not support them.
xlc -qcpluscmt
which is implied by
xlc -qlanglvl={stdc99,extc99}
when using xlc version >= 6. Don't know about p
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 04:36:55PM -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >
> >So would something like my proposed AC_PROG_CC_C99 macro be good as a
> >start? It would be optional, and simply check if a compiler
> >previously found with AC_PROG_CC can be put into
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Is C99 really 100% upward compatible with the previous version of the
>> standard, or is it possibly more strict and include type changes which
>> might impact library ABIs?
>
> I believe that it's entirely comp
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Roger Leigh wrote:
So would something like my proposed AC_PROG_CC_C99 macro be good as a
start? It would be optional, and simply check if a compiler
previously found with AC_PROG_CC can be put into a C99 mode. This
would be good for what I want--a portable way to get a C99 co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Roger Leigh wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you have a purpose for using C99 other than to intentionally write
>>> non-portable software?
>>
>> Yes: I would like to use C99 features, and the current
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Roger Leigh wrote:
Do you have a purpose for using C99 other than to intentionally write
non-portable software?
Yes: I would like to use C99 features, and the current autoconf
support isn't adequate. I can portably make use of _Bool, inline and
restrict, but that's it. The th
and include type changes which
> might impact library ABIs?
I believe that it's entirely compatible, providing you don't use the
new datatypes.
C99 support is nearly fully complete:
http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html
and the remaining issues are library issues, hopefully to come w
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Roger Leigh wrote:
It would be great if in the next year, AC_PROG_CC could default to
using a C99 compiler. Since it should be backward-compatible with C89
(??), this shouldn't be required, but I would really like to see C99
as the default, with some means of choosing an older
;gcc
>> -std=c99" or "c99" or similar, and I can't enable this portably. If
>> autoconf could find out how to put a given compiler into C99 mode,
>> that would be great (in the same way as AC_PROG_GCC_TRADITIONAL
>> works for K&R C).
>
> This so
ut how to put a given compiler into C99 mode,
that would be great (in the same way as AC_PROG_GCC_TRADITIONAL
works for K&R C).
This sort of test is also needed to test C99 support for anonymous
unions and structures in declarators, which I have run into problems
with before.
If there&#
iler into C99 mode,
that would be great (in the same way as AC_PROG_GCC_TRADITIONAL
works for K&R C).
This sort of test is also needed to test C99 support for anonymous
unions and structures in declarators, which I have run into problems
with before.
If there's a way to create AC_PROG_C
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Are there any tests I can use to specify that I want a C99 compiler?
>> AC_PROG_CC isn't sufficient.
>
> IMHO the preferred way is to check for the specific feat
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are there any tests I can use to specify that I want a C99 compiler?
> AC_PROG_CC isn't sufficient.
IMHO the preferred way is to check for the specific features you need
(eg. with AC_COMPILE_IFELSE) and abort when not provided (or maybe use
workarounds in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Are there any tests I can use to specify that I want a C99 compiler?
AC_PROG_CC isn't sufficient.
Would it be possible to introduce a macro to select the C standard
required (K&R, C89, C99)?
Ideally it could just detemine that gcc could accept the "-
18 matches
Mail list logo
