On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 05:41:36PM +0300, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 03:59:14PM +0300, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote:
>>...
>> >> Or, you asked "after what what compil
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 05:41:36PM +0300, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 03:59:14PM +0300, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote:
>...
> >> Or, you asked "after what what compiler (plus language support
> >> library) should be considere
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 03:59:14PM +0300, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:18:03AM +0300, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Paul Egge
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 03:59:14PM +0300, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:18:03AM +0300, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> >> > Yup, macros that invoke AC_PROG_CC_C89 a
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:18:03AM +0300, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> > Yup, macros that invoke AC_PROG_CC_C89 and AC_PROG_CC_C99
>> > are trouble. They're trouble now, and they'll conti
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:01:55PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> Marking AC_PROG_CC_C89/AC_PROG_CC_C99/AC_PROG_CC_STDC as obsolete
> (and turning them into aliases for AC_PROG_CC) is an option, and the
> more I think about it, it seems like the only option where trying to
> set the compiler into
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:18:03AM +0300, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > Yup, macros that invoke AC_PROG_CC_C89 and AC_PROG_CC_C99
> > are trouble. They're trouble now, and they'll continue to
> > be trouble. It's not clear how to fix this, oth
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:20:35PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 09/20/2012 03:29 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > ac_cv_prog_cc_c11 is no longer documented (but still set, and should
> > not be removed). Wanting to check that variable might even be a valid
> > usecase for AC_PROG_CC_C11?
>
> I'm n
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Yup, macros that invoke AC_PROG_CC_C89 and AC_PROG_CC_C99
> are trouble. They're trouble now, and they'll continue to
> be trouble. It's not clear how to fix this, other than
> to advise people to avoid those macros, which the patch
> does in
On 09/20/2012 03:29 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> ac_cv_prog_cc_c11 is no longer documented (but still set, and should
> not be removed). Wanting to check that variable might even be a valid
> usecase for AC_PROG_CC_C11?
I'm not sure we should be documenting any of that stuff, but if
we do, I'd rathe
Thanks for mentiong that. This area is a bit of a mess, so I took the
liberty of addressing that issue by doing one of the things on the TODO
list, and pushed the following patch into the autoconf master. Please
let me know if you have problems.
>From 9b8be34ae9ffb23d1ec269524d4f3aed82f77899 Mon
11 matches
Mail list logo
