[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Enforcing strict c99 compliance

From: Adam Mercer
Subject: Re: Enforcing strict c99 compliance
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 14:28:03 -0500

On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 01:22, Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> wrote:

Hi Ralf

> * Adam Mercer wrote on Sat, May 23, 2009 at 11:57:35PM CEST:
>> In a project I am involved with we are in the process of moving from
>> ANSI C89 to C99, the first step in this transition was to use
>> AC_PROG_CC_STDC to detect the compiler instead of AC_PROG_CC (we can't
>> use AC_PROG_CC_C99 as there are legacy systems running autoconf-2.59
>> that we need to support).
> That sounds like a bad idea.  If you cannot update the Autoconf 2.59
> system, then you should add required fixes to your package.  For
> example, you could use m4_ifdef([AC_PROG_CC_C99], [...], [...])
> to find out whether this macro is defined, and otherwise define your
> own version of it, to the one that does the checks done in current
> Autoconf, for example.  And then call that.

Thanks, I installed autoconf-2.63 and automake-1.11 locally and then
the appropriate flags are added. So I'll start trying to get approval
to update autoconf and automake on these systems. In the mean time
I'll see what is involved in adding AC_PROG_CC_C99 to our scripts.

> We don't really support bugs in 2.59 any more.

Understandable, its quite old now.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]