Roger Leigh <rleigh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > One change I've made is added arguments to AC_PROG_CC_C89, > AC_PROG_CC_C89 and AC_PROG_CC_STDC to allow custom code to run on > success or failure, to e.g. abort configure if there isn't a C99 > compiler available. I'd rather avoid this complexity. Isn't it easy enough to abort based on the value of ac_cv_prog_cc_c89 (or whatever)? > I can re-do the diff against autoconf CVS if required--I just don't > have a copy right now. That would be helpful, once you have the papers signed etc. We also need a patch to doc/autoconf.texi and to NEWS. > +# It > +# considers the compiler to be in ISO C99 C mode if it handles mixed > +# code and declarations, _Bool, inline and restrict. Can you please also check for the following features? variable declarations in for loops last member of a struct may be an incomplete array type varargs macros named initialization of structs variable length arrays long long These are all features that C99-ish programs are likely to want. > +# AC_PROG_CC_STDC ([ACTION-IF-AVAILABLE], [ACTION-IF-UNAVAILABLE]) > +# ---------------------------------------------------------------- > +AC_DEFUN([AC_PROG_CC_STDC], > +[AC_PROG_CC_C99([$1], [$2])]) This isn't quite right. It should try for C99 mode, and failing that it should try for C89 mode. Thanks. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
