Matthew Woehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (* You would need to (a) somehow force gcc to reject all non-c89
> constructs
"-std=c89 -pedantic-errors" is supposed to do that.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Ge
Andreas Schwab wrote:
Matthew Woehlke writes:
(* You would need to (a) somehow force gcc to reject all non-c89
constructs
"-std=c89 -pedantic-errors" is supposed to do that.
Agreed, but as I recall, emphasis is needed on "is supposed to". But
maybe I recall incorrectly, or had incorrect exp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Here's what Paul just added to Makefile.maint.
>> That should do it, as long as you do that build
>> on a relatively modern Linux system:
>>
>> $ grep -C2 ansi Makefile.maint
>> && (cd src && patch -V never --fuzz=0 >
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Here's what Paul just added to Makefile.maint.
> That should do it, as long as you do that build
> on a relatively modern Linux system:
>
> $ grep -C2 ansi Makefile.maint
> && (cd src && patch -V never --fuzz=0&& ./configure --disable-largefi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) wrote:
> Paul Eggert wrote:
>> Matthew Woehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I could probably do it on
>> > this box, but since it's Linux, it would still be with gcc.
>>
>> Even that would be helpful, since our current buildbot doesn't do the
>> particular comb
Paul Eggert wrote:
> Matthew Woehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I could probably do it on
> > this box, but since it's Linux, it would still be with gcc.
>
> Even that would be helpful, since our current buildbot doesn't do the
> particular combination of GCC options you're interested in.
Matthew Woehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Eggert wrote:
>> Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> This will keep me from releasing decl-after-stmt code in coreutils/src:
>> This inspired me to try harder for an automated check for departures
>> from C89. [snip]
>
> Thanks, both! Sinc
Paul Eggert wrote:
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This will keep me from releasing decl-after-stmt code in coreutils/src:
This inspired me to try harder for an automated check for departures
from C89. [snip]
Thanks, both! Since this is the most common C89 deviation (and one that
i
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But that ChangeLog block is the one for gnulib.
Sorry about that. Here it is. I also put this into my own git
repository.
2006-11-26 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Improve the check for departures from C89, and fix the departures
I
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> This will keep me from releasing decl-after-stmt code in coreutils/src:
>
> This inspired me to try harder for an automated check for departures
> from C89. Here's a proposed patch that implements such a check f
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This will keep me from releasing decl-after-stmt code in coreutils/src:
This inspired me to try harder for an automated check for departures
from C89. Here's a proposed patch that implements such a check for
coreutils, and that fixes the departures that
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Woehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Ok, happen to have a quick how-to? (A cron job that *doesn't* mail me
>> unless there is a problem would be nice :-).)
>
> http://buildbot.sourceforge.net/
>
> I haven't built one myself, but others have
Matthew Woehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, happen to have a quick how-to? (A cron job that *doesn't* mail me
> unless there is a problem would be nice :-).)
http://buildbot.sourceforge.net/
I haven't built one myself, but others have
Paul Eggert wrote:
Matthew Woehlke writes:
I could probably do it on
this box, but since it's Linux, it would still be with gcc.
Even that would be helpful, since our current buildbot doesn't do the
particular combination of GCC options you're interested in.
Ok, happen to have a quick how-to
Matthew Woehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I could probably do it on
> this box, but since it's Linux, it would still be with gcc.
Even that would be helpful, since our current buildbot doesn't do the
particular combination of GCC options you're interested in.
Matthew Woehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe it would help if someone occasionally did builds with gcc's
> strict-c89 mode
Even better, if someone would build CVS coreutils once a day with some
random non-GCC c89 compiler.
Perhaps you could arrange for that? (The usual idea is that the t
Matthew Woehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Michael Deutschmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Yet again, a new C89-incompatibility ... [snip]
>> As you can see, I am not very motivated to be
>> proactive about supporting such ancient compilers.
>> Is upgrading not an option
Michael Deutschmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yet again, a new C89-incompatibility has appeared in coreutils (6.5) that
> is not covered by c99-to-c89.diff. It's different from all I've reported
> before.
>
> The fix is appended.
Thanks for the patch. I applied it.
As you can see, I am not ve
18 matches
Mail list logo
