Zack Weinberg <za...@panix.com> writes: > -ansi, however, should not be in there at all; it doesn't just turn on > strict conformance mode, it turns on strict *C89* conformance mode, > which is often wrong for new code. And even nowadays, strict > conformance mode in general tends to break system headers.
Seconded. I have one package that I do test with -ansi, but mostly out of personal curiosity. Satisfying -ansi requires several contortions that are not really helpful for real-world portability for typical free software packages, such as limiting the length of quoted strings and messing about with feature-test macros. I think it's more of a specialized flag best reserved for environments with very particular standards-conformance requirements, or where one is targeting platforms that may not provide any functionality over the bare ANSI minimum. The same concerns apply to a lesser extent to --std=c99 or --std=c11. -- Russ Allbery (ea...@eyrie.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
