On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Peter Kjellerstedt <[email protected]> wrote: >> -----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?
huh? if C99 is a requirement then you better use a compiler that supports it. thats what is meant with adding a c99 requirement to uclibc. 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. c99 is not a gcc standard its a ISO C language standard gcc is one of the compilers that support it. > > //Peter > _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
