[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99 |
Date: |
Fri, 03 Dec 2004 13:00:16 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) |
Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> writes:
>> 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.
C99 doesn't require prototypes, so that alone doesn't violate the
principle cited above.
However, I agree that the coding standards use of "error" are not
compatible with C99 for a different reason -- implicit int -- where
the coding standards already suggest conforming to C99 and so the
"error" example doesn't even follow the coding standards. I've just
sent off a bug report about this to bug-standards, and CC'ed it to
<address@hidden>.
- 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, 2004/12/03
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99,
Paul Eggert <=
- 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