Paul Eggert wrote:
I don't think the autoconf patch would be that easy, as one would
need to handle a mixture of AC_PROG_CC_C99, AC_PROG_CC_C89, and
AC_PROG_CC_STDC calls. Again, I expect the only thing that's
saved us is that people just use AC_PROG_CC_STDC. Hmm, maybe
Autoconf should
On 09/30/11 02:06, Bruno Haible wrote:
-- Macro: AC_PROG_CC_STDC
If the C compiler cannot compile ISO Standard C (currently C99),
...
sounds like this macro will then be modified to enable C1X instead of C99.
Yes.
But I expect that many packages will not need this.
It
[Re-adding bug-autoconf]
Hi Bruno,
On 30 Sep 2011, at 16:56, Bruno Haible wrote:
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
But why emit a warning when
we can just fix-up the definition on the fly? ...
This changeset fixes AC_PROG_CC_C99
(and effectively AC_PROG_CC_STDC) whether it is called before or
after
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 17:02, Paul Eggert egg...@cs.ucla.edu wrote:
On 09/30/11 02:06, Bruno Haible wrote:
-- Macro: AC_PROG_CC_STDC
If the C compiler cannot compile ISO Standard C (currently C99),
...
sounds like this macro will then be modified to enable C1X instead of C99.
On 09/30/11 08:57, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote:
Assuming that AC_PROG_CC_C99 is not available (e.g. doesn't exists and
never existed), and only one macro is AC_PROG_CC_STDC, how I should to
express that c99 is required? Or c99 or better is required?
Right now, you can't. That would need to be
