> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Khem Raj > Sent: den 1 augusti 2010 10:11 > To: Peter Kjellerstedt > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [patch] avoid c99 declaration > > On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Peter Kjellerstedt > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [email protected] > >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Frysinger > >> Sent: den 1 augusti 2010 04:08 > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [patch] avoid c99 declaration > >> > >> On Saturday, July 31, 2010 16:22:35 Khem Raj wrote: > >> > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote: > >> > > On 7/28/2010 7:51 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> > >> On Monday, June 21, 2010 06:39:12 Gianluigi Tiesi wrote: > >> > >>> While compiling uClibc inside openwrt build system I > >> > >>> have somehow the compiler without -std=c99 flash (since > >> > >>> adding id causes me some troubles) > >> > >> > >> > >> why dont we fix uClibc to use c99 then ? if your toolchain > >> > >> is new enough to support TLS as NPTL requires, then it's > >> > >> new enough to support c99 features. we shouldnt go throwing > >> > >> frivolous patches at the NPTL code when we're merely > >> > >> importing it from glibc. realistically, we dont have the > >> > >> man power to maintain a fork which means we need to be > >> > >> sticking as lose to glibc as possible here. > >> > > > >> > > I definitely agree with Mike. Even if changes are dummy, > >> > > merging effort with updated version of NPTL/glibc could be > >> > > too huge. > >> > > >> > yes I agree. I proposed to make C99 a requirement for uclibc. > >> > >> i'm not necessarily set on all of uClibc, but certainly any part > >> that utilizes TLS. i guess we could enable -std=gnu99 in the > >> build and see who (if any) complains. > >> > >> if no one has anything else, i'll revert the changes in > >> question and add -std=gnu99. > >> -mike > > > > You already have this in Rules.mak: > > > > CPU_CFLAGS-y += $(call check_gcc,-std=gnu99,) > > > > so C99 should already be a requirement (at least for gcc)... > > No. its only turned on if gcc supports it. what I proposed was to > have it turned on always.
And if the compiler does not support it, how do you propose to turn it on? I thought gcc is not the only compiler used to compile uClibc, but I may be wrong as I never used anything other than gcc myself. //Peter _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
