On 09/25/11 09:35, Bruno Haible wrote:
> AC_PROG_CC_C99 should then be preferred over AC_PROG_CC_STDC. Right?
No, because one cannot safely mix
AC_PROG_CC_C99 and AC_PROG_CC_STDC, just
as one cannot safely mix AC_PROG_CC_STDC
and AC_PROG_CC_C89, or safely mix
AC_PROG_CC_C89 and AC_PROG_CC_C99.
Pe
Paul Eggert wrote:
> if a Gnulib module requires a reasonably
> up-to-date C compiler, it might be a good idea for the module
> to AC_REQUIRE([AC_PROG_CC_STDC]).
What is the difference between AC_PROG_CC_STDC and AC_PROG_CC_C99?
As I understand it, AC_PROG_CC_STDC is a "moving target", whereas
AC_
On 09/25/11 06:25, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> If doing this in gnulib we should also remove the
> -Wdeclaration-after-statement from m4/manywarnings.m4
Good point. Also, if a Gnulib module requires a reasonably
up-to-date C compiler, it might be a good idea for the module
to AC_REQUIRE([AC_PROG_CC_ST
On 09/25/2011 09:14 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On 25 Sep 2011, at 13:09, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
>> On 09/24/11 22:31, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>>> $ cc -o hello hello.c
>>> cc-1241 cc: ERROR File = hello.c, Line = 7
>>> A declaration cannot appear after an executable statement in a bl
Hi Paul,
On 25 Sep 2011, at 13:09, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 09/24/11 22:31, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>> $ cc -o hello hello.c
>> cc-1241 cc: ERROR File = hello.c, Line = 7
>> A declaration cannot appear after an executable statement in a block.
>
> You're supposed to use cc's -c99 flag, no?
> Or c
On 09/24/11 22:31, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> $ cc -o hello hello.c
> cc-1241 cc: ERROR File = hello.c, Line = 7
> A declaration cannot appear after an executable statement in a block.
You're supposed to use cc's -c99 flag, no?
Or compile with c99? Then declarations after statements
should work;
On 25 Sep 2011, at 11:32, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 09/24/11 07:26, Bruno Haible wrote:
>> 1) Is it important for you that what you get from gnulib can be compiled
>> with a C89 compiler (gcc 2.95, IRIX cc, MSVC)?
>
> IRIX users can install either GCC or MIPSpro C (the SGI proprietary compiler).
On 09/24/11 07:26, Bruno Haible wrote:
> 1) Is it important for you that what you get from gnulib can be compiled
>with a C89 compiler (gcc 2.95, IRIX cc, MSVC)?
Not any more.
Platforms that use GCC 2.95 can install a newer GCC and use that.
IRIX users can install either GCC or MIPSpro C (th
On 24 Sep 2011, at 21:26, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> I will then do what I did for a few years with coreutils:
>>
>>Manually maintain a C99-to-C89 patch for each of the few .c files
>>that deserve the effort, like fts.c.
>>Then, people who require C89 sources can appl
On 09/24/2011 08:26 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
All,
Jim Meyering wrote:
I will then do what I did for a few years with coreutils:
Manually maintain a C99-to-C89 patch for each of the few .c files
that deserve the effort, like fts.c.
Then, people who require C89 sources can apply th
All,
Jim Meyering wrote:
> I will then do what I did for a few years with coreutils:
>
> Manually maintain a C99-to-C89 patch for each of the few .c files
> that deserve the effort, like fts.c.
> Then, people who require C89 sources can apply the patch manually.
> Or, who knows...
11 matches
Mail list logo
