On 01/10/2013 09:19 PM, Dave Goodell wrote:
> There were some contrived examples, as well as one slightly less
> contrived one that had to do with enum scoping differences between
> C89 and C99:
>
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2012-10/msg00080.html
I dunno, that one's pretty contr
On Jan 10, 2013, at 5:37 PM CST, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 01/10/2013 03:00 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> Given in the discussion that examples were provided where selecting
>> the latest version was not always a desirable behaviour,
>
> Sorry, I don't recall the examples.
There were some contrived ex
On 01/10/2013 03:00 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Given in the discussion that examples were provided where selecting
> the latest version was not always a desirable behaviour,
Sorry, I don't recall the examples.
Is it likely that that some packages won't want -std=gnu++11,
but other packages will? A
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 01:55:58PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 10/27/2012 01:38 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Is anyone working on such a thing?
>
> Not that I know of.
>
> For C, we're deprecating the "I want version X"
> macros in favor of just AC_PROG_CC_STDC, which says
> "I want the latest v
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andrew W. Nosenko:
>
>>> I've since checked, and it was was with 4.7.1.
>>>
>>> Linking C++98 and C++11 code together is still officially unsupported,
>>> even if it is supposed to work if you just use libstdc++. So I think
>>> it's wrong
* Andrew W. Nosenko:
>> I've since checked, and it was was with 4.7.1.
>>
>> Linking C++98 and C++11 code together is still officially unsupported,
>> even if it is supposed to work if you just use libstdc++. So I think
>> it's wrong to automatically default to C++11 when available.
>
> Why?
Bec
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Florian Weimer:
>
>> * Andrew W. Nosenko:
>>
>>> ABI break by gcc-4.7.0 and 4.7.1 in c++11 mode was a bug (or
>>> misfeature, call it as you want). Fixed in gcc-4.7.2.
>>> From http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/changes.html :
>>
>> I've seen simi
* Florian Weimer:
> * Andrew W. Nosenko:
>
>> ABI break by gcc-4.7.0 and 4.7.1 in c++11 mode was a bug (or
>> misfeature, call it as you want). Fixed in gcc-4.7.2.
>> From http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/changes.html :
>
> I've seen similar issues with GCC 4.7.2. I thought that this was
> expected, s
On 10/30/2012 09:11 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> if your example program would be built using autoconf, it would
> behave differently depending on the autoconf version used.
Yes, it's possible to write C89 programs that silently
change meaning if compiled with C99. Here's an other example,
which I g
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 05:07:04PM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes:
> > On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 10:47:50PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > Maybe have an optional argument to AC_PROG_CC_STDC to select
> > > the standard e.g.
> > > AC_PROG_CC_STDC([C99])
> > > ?
>
> I like this ide
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:43:59AM -0400, Nick Bowler wrote:
> On 2012-10-30 16:35 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 11:46:51AM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > >...
> > > If the code was written for C89 then I am likely to want to continue
> > > compiling it for C89 if possibl
On 2012-10-30 16:35 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 11:46:51AM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> >...
> > If the code was written for C89 then I am likely to want to continue
> > compiling it for C89 if possible but also allow "best effort" if the
> > compiler does not have a C89
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 11:46:51AM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>...
> If the code was written for C89 then I am likely to want to continue
> compiling it for C89 if possible but also allow "best effort" if the
> compiler does not have a C89 mode. If the code is updated to also
> work properly fo
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:50:10PM -0400, Trent Nelson wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 05:07:04PM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> > Adrian Bunk writes:
> > > On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 10:47:50PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > > Maybe have an optional argument to AC_PROG_CC_STDC to select
> > > > the s
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 11:07:23AM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 03:00:01AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 10:47:50PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>...
> > > Maybe have an optional argument to AC_PROG_CC_STDC to select
> > > the standard e.g.
> > > AC_PRO
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 08:08:13PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes:
> > On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 06:45:01PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> Almost none of the software that I work on requires a 64-bit integer type.
> >> (C89 or later is also my default target for the software I w
On 10/28/2012 04:07 AM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> If I want C11, I certainly won't find the C99 or C89
> fallbacks useful at all. I want it to fail there and then.
I'm afraid that if you want C11, then the only reasonable
implementation right now is something like this:
AC_MSG_ERROR([C11 is not sup
* Andrew W. Nosenko:
> ABI break by gcc-4.7.0 and 4.7.1 in c++11 mode was a bug (or
> misfeature, call it as you want). Fixed in gcc-4.7.2.
> From http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/changes.html :
I've seen similar issues with GCC 4.7.2. I thought that this was
expected, so I didn't report it as a bug.
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Roger Leigh:
>
>> I would propose to add:
>>
>> AC_PROG_CXX_STDCXX
>> AC_PROG_CXX_CXX98
>> AC_PROG_CXX_CXXTR1 [CXX98 with additional checks for TR1 headers]
>> AC_PROG_CXX_CXX11
>>
>> With behaviour the same as the existing C macros.
>
> T
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012, Roger Leigh wrote:
Testing for features is a problem separate from compiler mode setting.
Yes, but we aren't really talking about testing strict standards
conformance here. We just want the compiler put in a *specific*
mode. If I want C11, I certainly won't find the C99
* Roger Leigh:
> I would propose to add:
>
> AC_PROG_CXX_STDCXX
> AC_PROG_CXX_CXX98
> AC_PROG_CXX_CXXTR1 [CXX98 with additional checks for TR1 headers]
> AC_PROG_CXX_CXX11
>
> With behaviour the same as the existing C macros.
This would be unwise because picking the most recent
compiler-supported
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 03:00:01AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 10:47:50PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 01:55:58PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > > On 10/27/2012 01:38 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > > Is anyone working on such a thing?
> > >
> > > Not t
Adrian Bunk writes:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 06:45:01PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Almost none of the software that I work on requires a 64-bit integer type.
>> (C89 or later is also my default target for the software I write.)
> I just tried to build remctl and lbcd with CC="gcc -pedantic-e
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 06:45:01PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes:
>
> > Real "buildable by C89 or later" is rarely used, since due to lack of
> > long long you have no guaranteed 64bit integer type in C89.
>
> Almost none of the software that I work on requires a 64-bit intege
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 06:25:02PM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes:
> > On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 05:59:23PM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> > > Adrian,
> >
> > Hi Harlan,
> >
> > > I don't think either one of us will convince the other.
> > >
> > > I'm done.
> >
> > I'm surprised ge
Adrian Bunk writes:
> Real "buildable by C89 or later" is rarely used, since due to lack of
> long long you have no guaranteed 64bit integer type in C89.
Almost none of the software that I work on requires a 64-bit integer type.
(C89 or later is also my default target for the software I write.)
Adrian Bunk writes:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 05:59:23PM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> > Adrian,
>
> Hi Harlan,
>
> > I don't think either one of us will convince the other.
> >
> > I'm done.
>
> I'm surprised getting that as an answer to an email where I suggested a
> possible solution for you
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 05:59:23PM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> Adrian,
Hi Harlan,
> I don't think either one of us will convince the other.
>
> I'm done.
I'm surprised getting that as an answer to an email where I suggested a
possible solution for your use cases.
> H
cu
Adrian
--
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 05:07:04PM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes:
> > On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 10:47:50PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>...
> > > I originally wrote AC_PROC_CC_C99 because it was several years
> > > since GCC supported C99, but there was no portable way to use
> > > C9
Adrian,
I don't think either one of us will convince the other.
I'm done.
H
___
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 04:58:09PM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes:
> > On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 02:05:01PM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> > > Paul Eggert writes:
> > > > For C, we're deprecating the "I want version X"
> > > > macros in favor of just AC_PROG_CC_STDC, which says
> > > >
Adrian Bunk writes:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 10:47:50PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Maybe have an optional argument to AC_PROG_CC_STDC to select
> > the standard e.g.
> > AC_PROG_CC_STDC([C99])
> > ?
I like this idea.
> Latest discussion result was that there is no downside of setting the
>
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 10:47:50PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 01:55:58PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > On 10/27/2012 01:38 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > Is anyone working on such a thing?
> >
> > Not that I know of.
> >
> > For C, we're deprecating the "I want version X"
>
Adrian Bunk writes:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 02:05:01PM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> > Paul Eggert writes:
> > > For C, we're deprecating the "I want version X"
> > > macros in favor of just AC_PROG_CC_STDC, which says
> > > "I want the latest version". You might want to do
> > > that for C++ to,
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 02:05:01PM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> Paul Eggert writes:
> > On 10/27/2012 01:38 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > Is anyone working on such a thing?
> >
> > Not that I know of.
> >
> > For C, we're deprecating the "I want version X"
> > macros in favor of just AC_PROG_CC_ST
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 01:55:58PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 10/27/2012 01:38 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Is anyone working on such a thing?
>
> Not that I know of.
>
> For C, we're deprecating the "I want version X"
> macros in favor of just AC_PROG_CC_STDC, which says
> "I want the latest v
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 01:55:58PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 10/27/2012 01:38 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Is anyone working on such a thing?
>
> Not that I know of.
>
> For C, we're deprecating the "I want version X"
> macros in favor of just AC_PROG_CC_STDC, which says
> "I want the latest v
Paul Eggert writes:
> On 10/27/2012 01:38 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Is anyone working on such a thing?
>
> Not that I know of.
>
> For C, we're deprecating the "I want version X"
> macros in favor of just AC_PROG_CC_STDC, which says
> "I want the latest version". You might want to do
> that for
On 10/27/2012 01:38 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Is anyone working on such a thing?
Not that I know of.
For C, we're deprecating the "I want version X"
macros in favor of just AC_PROG_CC_STDC, which says
"I want the latest version". You might want to do
that for C++ to, as it's more the Autoconf Way
39 matches
Mail list logo
