-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"Kevin P. Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Roger Leigh wrote:
>
>> and these work well. What it doesn't do is let me use features such
>> as mixed declarations and code. These require you to use "gcc
>> -std=c99" or "c99" or similar, and I can
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 shou
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
-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:
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
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, 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
