Hi folks,
A while back now, I wrote the AC_PROG_CC_C89 and AC_PROG_CC_C99
macros (and I see now there's a C11 variant--nice!) to select
the standard mode used by the C compiler.
However, it does not appear that an equivalent facility exists
for the C++ compiler, despite g++ supporting an equivale
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
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 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
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
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 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 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 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,
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 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
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
--
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
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.)
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
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
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
