-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Larry Jones wrote: > OK, I've gone ahead and committed the changes to both stable and > feature. The log messages are very big, so they're being held for > moderator approval.
Thanks. I've let the messages through. > For now, I think it's best to stick to C89, particularly for stable. I never meant to suggest the new macros be used on stable. As for feature, I believe AC_PROG_CC_STDC tries C99 then falls back on C89 when it doesn't work, so we'd still have to program for C89 as the lowest common denominator, but would we get any benefits from compiling in C99 mode? At the least on SGI, it's obvious some features have been disabled in C89 mode. Some of the optimizer flags we use only when available, like "inline", may be disabled in some C89 compilers yet work in the same compilers' in C99 mode. Similar logic applies to the "restrict" keyword. I imagine it's possible that the native bool is going to be faster than what the GNULIB replacement stdbool.h comes up with, as well. That's just off the top of my head - there may be others. Regards, Derek - -- Derek R. Price CVS Solutions Architect Get CVS support at Ximbiot <http://ximbiot.com>! v: +1 248.835.1260 f: +1 248.835.1263 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEowDULD1OTBfyMaQRApanAKDBEhCqngXC7Woita+8c0lqnO9SSwCgrP+d npcz/0gqH8Q5JTcQxMV07Hk= =h4Va -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Bug-cvs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs
