Re: c99

2001-10-13 Thread Guido Draheim
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 1. How do i request a C99 compiler? Is there some variation on AC_PROG_CC? Do never ask for a version declaration, always ask for a feature you need - that is the basic principle of autoconf. Many features being declared as C99 were present in the 1994-version of a

Re: c99

2001-10-13 Thread vishnu
On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 11:18:16AM +0200, Guido Draheim wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 1. How do i request a C99 compiler? Is there some variation on AC_PROG_CC? > > Do never ask for a version declaration, always ask for a feature > you need - that is the basic principle of autoconf. Many

Re: c99

2001-10-13 Thread Guido Draheim
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 11:18:16AM +0200, Guido Draheim wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > 1. How do i request a C99 compiler? Is there some variation on AC_PROG_CC? > > > > Do never ask for a version declaration, always ask for a feature > > you need - that i

Am I using m4_patsubst and m4_regexp?

2001-10-13 Thread Roberto Bagnara
Hi there, I have switched to the latest autoconf snapshot (2.52e, cvs-updated today) and have tried hard to follow all the instructions for the upgrade. I believe I am no longer using any deprecated feature, but I get $ autoreconf configure.ac:21: warning: do not use m4_patsubst: use patsubst o

Re: c99

2001-10-13 Thread vishnu
On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 06:46:35PM +0200, Guido Draheim wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > i'm using: > > > > for (gint xx=0; xx < 3; xx++) { .. } > > > > and i generally mix variable declarations and statements as i > > please instead of putting all the declarations near the open brace. >

Re: c99

2001-10-13 Thread Paul Eggert
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 10:22:31 -0700 > > AC_MSG_CHECKING([whether $CC accepts C99 declarations]) > AC_TRY_COMPILE([],[ > int x=0; x+=1; int y=0; > for (int z=0; z < 2; z++); > ],[ > AC_MSG_RESULT(yes) > ], > [ > AC_MSG_ERROR([ > *** This package requires a C99

Re: c99

2001-10-13 Thread vishnu
On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 11:24:57AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 10:22:31 -0700 > > > > AC_MSG_CHECKING([whether $CC accepts C99 declarations]) > > AC_TRY_COMPILE([],[ > > int x=0; x+=1; int y=0; > > for (int z=0; z < 2; z++); > > ],[ > > A

Re: c99

2001-10-13 Thread Guido Draheim
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 11:24:57AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 10:22:31 -0700 > > > > > > AC_MSG_CHECKING([whether $CC accepts C99 declarations]) > > > AC_TRY_COMPILE([],[ > > > int x=0; x+=1; int y=0; > > >

Re: c99

2001-10-13 Thread vishnu
On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 09:07:54PM +0200, Guido Draheim wrote: > > No, that's silly. i'm not going to litter my code with #ifdefs > > for old compilers. More realistically, i just want configure to > > suggest upgrading gcc if the installed gcc doesn't support C99. > > Something like that. > > h

Re: c99

2001-10-13 Thread Guido Draheim
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 09:07:54PM +0200, Guido Draheim wrote: > > > No, that's silly. i'm not going to litter my code with #ifdefs > > > for old compilers. More realistically, i just want configure to > > > suggest upgrading gcc if the installed gcc doesn't support

Re: Am I using m4_patsubst and m4_regexp?

2001-10-13 Thread akim
On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 06:55:19PM +0200, Roberto Bagnara wrote: > > Hi there, > > I have switched to the latest autoconf snapshot (2.52e, cvs-updated today) > and have tried hard to follow all the instructions for the upgrade. > I believe I am no longer using any deprecated feature, but I get >

Re: Am I using m4_patsubst and m4_regexp?

2001-10-13 Thread akim
I forgot to say that of course next versions of Automake won't have this problem. Together with the spurious failures of cond5, maybe this deserves a 1.5.1?