Hi Paul, Am 18.09.2018 um 22:19 schrieb Paul Eggert: >> What do you think about including the following to configure.ac [second >> patch ;-)]? > > I'm not sure it's worth the effort. Bison doesn't require full support > for C99, and it would be a maintenance burden to document the exact set > of C99 features it needs, a burden that would fall both on Bison > maintainers (who would have to maintain a list of features that almost > nobody cares about) and on Bison builders (who would have to read that > list and assume it's important and run through the checklist, even > though the list would be a waste of time for almost all of them).
I also don't think it is worth the effort to check for every C99 item that is needed. But a minimal check like stdint.h, long long and declaration-after-code wouldn't hurt, would it? > I wouldn't even add info about which VS version is needed, since that > will likely evolve too. I wouldn't do this myself. If you have the check in configure and a note in README (I personally *do* check the README before running configure but not the FAQ) you have said enough :-) > At most I would add a brief note to the FAQ that > is easy to maintain as it avoids mentioning specific versions. I > installed the attached as an attempt to do that. The patch is fine, but I don't think it provides a reason to not install my second patch for configure.ac [the place for the check is likely wrong, should be done after "try to find C99 compatibility-option"] and README. Do you see any specific issues with the proposed changes? Thank you for your response, Simon
