Hi Ilya, <snipped>
> >> > >> It also complains about AC_PROG_CC_C99, but I'm not sure if we want > >> to or how to correctly replace it. > >> Suggested AC_PROG_CC enables C11 by default and that might not be a > >> desired behavior. > > > > Not an expert in this area, but to ensure C99 support, the > > documentation seems to point to having additional checks where > > required; particularly checking cache variable ac_cv_prog_cc_c99 > > https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.70/html_node/C > > -Compiler.html#AC_005fPROG_005fCC > > > > Seems we could borrow the idea used in this project: > https://github.com/lldpd/lldpd/blob/master/configure.ac ? > > > > Havent tried this though, so not sure if this really works. > > We could do that, I guess. But that will not save us from the > obsolescence warning, so I'm not sure if we need to touch that code. I was thinking more on the lines of: -AC_PROG_CC_C99 +m4_version_prereq([2.70],[AC_PROG_CC],[AC_PROG_CC_C99]) +if test x"$ac_cv_prog_cc_c99" = x"no"; then + AC_MSG_FAILURE([C99 support is required for OVS]) +fi But it seems the recommendation changes a bit from 2.70 [1] to 2.71 [2] on standard C support inspection, i.e checking ac_cv_prog_cc_c99 and ac_prog_cc_stdc respectively. [1] : https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.70/html_node/C-Compiler.html [2] : https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.71/html_node/C-Compiler.html So, I am not sure either. > > > > >> <snipped> Thanks and regards Sunil _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
