Paul Eggert wrote:
Matthew Woehlke writes:
Maybe it would help if someone occasionally did builds with gcc's
strict-c89 mode
Even better, if someone would build CVS coreutils once a day with some
random non-GCC c89 compiler.
Perhaps you could arrange for that? (The usual idea is that the the
people who need a feature volunteer to maintain it. :-)
I'm sure someone in IT (or accounting :-)) would have things to say
about that. I build stable versions because having a GNU toolchain helps
me do my job with (generally) fewer headaches. Doing nightly builds on
computers that are not mine would be another matter; certainly I would
need to get permission. I could probably do it on this box, but since
it's Linux, it would still be with gcc.
For what it's worth, coreutils-6.5 fails in fts.c with CFLAGS='-ansi
-Werror -Wdeclaration-after-statement', which catches the most popular
c89-non-conformance issues.
gcc -I. -ansi -Werror -Wdeclaration-after-statement -MT fts.o -MD
-MP -MF .deps/fts.Tpo -c -o fts.o fts.c
fts.c: In function `fts_safe_changedir':
fts.c:1649: warning: ISO C90 forbids mixed declarations and code
make[2]: *** [fts.o] Error 1
--
Matthew
"What's Cygwin?" you ask.
'Tis mostly absurd software
Concerning hippos.
_______________________________________________
Bug-coreutils mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
