On 2013-03-08 04:07, Eitan Adler wrote:
> On 7 March 2013 18:03, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
>> On 2013-03-07 22:36, Warner Losh wrote:
>>> On Mar 7, 2013, at 2:28 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 2013-03-07 21:22, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
...
> Because it's the practical thing to do? Old code/ma
On 8 March 2013 12:40, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Mar 7, 2013, at 8:07 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
>
>> On 7 March 2013 18:03, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
>>> On 2013-03-07 22:36, Warner Losh wrote:
On Mar 7, 2013, at 2:28 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2013-03-07 21:22, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
>
On Mar 7, 2013, at 8:07 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
> On 7 March 2013 18:03, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
>> On 2013-03-07 22:36, Warner Losh wrote:
>>> On Mar 7, 2013, at 2:28 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 2013-03-07 21:22, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
...
> Because it's the practical thing to do? Ol
On 7 March 2013 18:03, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> On 2013-03-07 22:36, Warner Losh wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 2013, at 2:28 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>>> On 2013-03-07 21:22, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
>>> ...
Because it's the practical thing to do? Old code/makefiles can't possibly
be expected to know
On 2013-03-07 22:36, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2013, at 2:28 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>> On 2013-03-07 21:22, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
>> ...
>>> Because it's the practical thing to do? Old code/makefiles can't possibly
>>> be expected to know about compilers of the future, while new code can be
On Mar 7, 2013, at 2:28 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2013-03-07 21:22, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> ...
>> Because it's the practical thing to do? Old code/makefiles can't possibly
>> be expected to know about compilers of the future, while new code can be
>> expected to add -std=c11.
>
> I am not
On 2013-03-07 21:22, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
...
Because it's the practical thing to do? Old code/makefiles can't possibly
be expected to know about compilers of the future, while new code can be
expected to add -std=c11.
I am not sure I buy that argument; if it were so, we should default to
K&R
On 2013-03-07 20:28, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2013-03-07 18:24, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
>> Whatever the command line arguments, running c89 almost always results in
>> the following output. Anyone else seeing this?
>>
>> c89: illegal option -- 1
>> usage: c89 [-cEgOs] [-D name[=value]] ... [-I dire
On 7 Mar 2013, at 19:28, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>> Also, I seem to remember a discussion about making -std=gnu89 the default
>> for clang when run as "cc", but nothing seems to have changed. Could this
>> be picked up again, because there are in fact subtle semantic differences
>> between gnu89 in
On 2013-03-07 18:24, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
Whatever the command line arguments, running c89 almost always results in
the following output. Anyone else seeing this?
c89: illegal option -- 1
usage: c89 [-cEgOs] [-D name[=value]] ... [-I directory] ... [-L directory] ...
[-o outfile] [-
Whatever the command line arguments, running c89 almost always results in
the following output. Anyone else seeing this?
c89: illegal option -- 1
usage: c89 [-cEgOs] [-D name[=value]] ... [-I directory] ... [-L directory] ...
[-o outfile] [-U name] ... operand ...
where operand
11 matches
Mail list logo