As Eric Weddington wrote: > First, I don't know if all of avr-libc would pass the pedantic check > anyway because we use extensions, which is not strict ISO C.
All extensions are supposed to be properly protected (either by marking them as __extension__, or by using the double-underlined versions of keywords, as __asm__), so I think "-pedantic"-safety should really be a goal of avr-libc. I agree that we might only want to maintain warning-free compilation for -std=c99 or -std=gnu99. There are pieces of code already that don't even work without it (like, <util/atomic.h>). If it still works with -std=c89 or -std=gnu89 (which is currently still GCC's default), it's fine, if it doesn't, we don't care much. After all, the current ISO C standard did pass its 10th birthday already, so it's already a teenager now. ;-) -- cheers, J"org .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) _______________________________________________ AVR-libc-dev mailing list AVR-libc-dev@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
