Re: Feature request: AC_PROG_CC_* macros for gnu89/gnu99-compliant compiler

[Michał Górny]

On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 08:36:17 -0800
Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 02/02/2013 05:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > In order to solve that properly, I would like to request having two new
> > macros in autoconf: AC_PROG_CC_GNU89 and AC_PROG_CC_GNU99, in a similar
> > manner to the AC_PROG_CC_C99 macro.
> 
> We've been moving in the opposite direction:
> AC_PROG_CC_STDC, AC_PROG_CC_C89 and AC_PROG_CC_C99 will be marked as
> obsolescent in the next version of Autoconf.  The idea
> is that AC_PROG_CC should "just work", and maintainers
> shouldn't have to fiddle with all those AC_PROG_CC_whatever
> macros whenever a new compiler comes out.
> 
> Can you give an example of a package that has a problem,
> and symptoms of the problem?  That might help us come up with
> a better solution.  For example, what happens if you configure
> with "./configure CC='clang -std=gnu11'"?

The major issue we've been having is difference in inline semantics
between gnu89 and c99. It hit us at least with libgcrypt [1,2],
pkg-config [3,4], e2fsprogs [5].

The usual way of fixing it on our side was appending 'std=gnu89'
or a similar option. But I believe configure scripts should handle this
for us...

[1]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=420899
[2]:https://bugs.g10code.com/gnupg/issue1406
[3]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=297248
[4]:https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29313
[5]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=297243

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature