[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99 |
Date: |
Fri, 3 Dec 2004 08:53:54 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.1i |
* Paul Eggert wrote on Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 09:53:52PM CET:
>
> Personally, I don't advocate assuming C99 just yet -- only one C99
> compiler exists right now, as far as I know, and it's not free -- but
> other people might reasonably disagree and Autoconf can cater to them
> too. Also, people can assume some C99 features, if they like. It's
> up to them.
>
> However, today I do advocate writing code that is portable to C99.
> That is why it's OK to change AC_PROG_CC_STDC to prefer C99 to C89, if
> both are available. People's code shouldn't assume the features of
> C89 that are incompatible with C99.
This is a good notion, IMVHO. Unfortunately, it conflicts with
(standards.info)CPU Portability
where the infamous `error' example is advocated to be used without
prototype. Maybe one should try to address this as well.
Regards,
Ralf
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, (continued)
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Steven G. Johnson, 2004/12/01
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Roger Leigh, 2004/12/01
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Paul Eggert, 2004/12/01
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Roger Leigh, 2004/12/02
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Kevin P. Fleming, 2004/12/02
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Paul Eggert, 2004/12/02
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Kevin P. Fleming, 2004/12/02
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Paul Eggert, 2004/12/02
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99,
Ralf Wildenhues <=
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Paul Eggert, 2004/12/03
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Kevin P. Fleming, 2004/12/03
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Paul Eggert, 2004/12/02
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Steven G. Johnson, 2004/12/03
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Steven G. Johnson, 2004/12/03
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Paul Eggert, 2004/12/04
Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Dan Manthey, 2004/12/28