On 4/12/2016 11:24 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>
> Also, checking for is pointless these days. You can portably
> assume a C89 compiler (and these days, often a C99 compiler), which
> guarantees is present.
>
But removing that check would thwart the purpose of autoconf being able
to provide legacy
On 4/8/2016 6:25 AM, Iglesias, Gérard (FircoSoft) wrote:
> Hello evrybody,
>
> We use autotools for our build factory wich build programs under a lot of
> computers/OS, including mainframe.
>
> We succeeded compiling and linking executable (PGM) and static lib (BNDDIR)
> under OS400 / Pase witj
On 04/12/2016 08:24 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
Also, checking for is pointless these days. You can portably
assume a C89 compiler (and these days, often a C99 compiler), which
guarantees is present.
Although it's safe to assume C89ish (or even C99ish) these days, there
is the possibility that it
