Re: Enforcing strict c99 compliance

[Adam Mercer]

On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 14:28, Adam Mercer<address@hidden> wrote:
> On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 01:22, Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> wrote:

>> * 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.

I have now got this working; on systems where AC_PROG_CC_C99 is
available this is used, otherwise the local copy is used. I have
noticed that AC_PROG_CC_C99 defaults to using -std=gnu99, is there a
way to use -std=c99 (i.e. without the GNU extensions)?

Cheers

Adam