Re: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99

2011-09-30 Thread Paul Eggert
On 09/30/11 08:57, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote: > Assuming that AC_PROG_CC_C99 is not available (e.g. doesn't exists and > never existed), and only one macro is AC_PROG_CC_STDC, how I should to > express that "c99 is required"? Or "c99 or better is required"? Right now, you can't. That would need to

Re: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99

2011-09-30 Thread Andrew W. Nosenko
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 17:02, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 09/30/11 02:06, Bruno Haible wrote: >>  -- Macro: AC_PROG_CC_STDC >>      If the C compiler cannot compile ISO Standard C (currently C99), >>      ... >> >> sounds like this macro will then be modified to enable C1X instead of C99. > > Yes. >

Re: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99

2011-09-30 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
[Re-adding bug-autoconf] Hi Bruno, On 30 Sep 2011, at 16:56, Bruno Haible wrote: > Gary V. Vaughan wrote: >> But why emit a warning when >> we can just fix-up the definition on the fly? ... >> This changeset fixes AC_PROG_CC_C99 >> (and effectively AC_PROG_CC_STDC) whether it is called before or

Re: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99

2011-09-30 Thread Paul Eggert
On 09/30/11 02:06, Bruno Haible wrote: > -- Macro: AC_PROG_CC_STDC > If the C compiler cannot compile ISO Standard C (currently C99), > ... > > sounds like this macro will then be modified to enable C1X instead of C99. Yes. > But I expect that many packages will not need this. It sho

Re: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99

2011-09-30 Thread Bruno Haible
Paul Eggert wrote: > I don't think the autoconf patch would be that easy, as one would > need to handle a mixture of AC_PROG_CC_C99, AC_PROG_CC_C89, and > AC_PROG_CC_STDC calls. Again, I expect the only thing that's > saved us is that people just use AC_PROG_CC_STDC. Hmm, maybe > Autoconf should

Re: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99

2011-09-29 Thread Paul Eggert
On 09/29/11 02:14, Bruno Haible wrote: > But switching the compiler to a different standards-compliance > mode is a global effect. I was not sure whether it would have some negative > side effects on some platforms. > > On the other hand, we do it in module 'stdarg' for 5 years now, and it has > n

Re: Getting AC_PROG_CC_C99

2011-09-28 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
On 29 Sep 2011, at 00:58, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 09/28/11 09:45, Bruno Haible wrote: >> If the package's configure.ac already invokes AC_PROG_CC_STDC, >> early on (i.e. usually right after AC_PROG_CC), then gnulib's >> AC_REQUIRE([AC_PROG_CC_STDC]) >> will be a no-op. > > Ah, sorry, then we're f