Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@xxxxxx> writes: > This worries me to some extent. While C99 is mostly backwards > compatible with C89, it has removed some deprecated things such as > functions return implicit int, > implicit function declaration. In practice this shouldn't be much of a problem, since C99 compilers (in extended mode, which is what we want) will allow these features for obvious backwards-compatibility reasons. We may have a problem where a compiler is put into pedantic mode by mistake. But this will be a bug, that we should fix, and in the meantime users can work around the problem by setting CC in their environment. I only know of one true C99 compiler, by the way -- the Edison front end -- and I've never used it. It's not free, unfortunately. It'd be nice if someone with access to that compiler could test all this stuff. > it will silently break Autoconf macros which use implicitly declared > functions, e.g. within deprecated AC_TRY_RUN constructs. Such macros would already already be broken for pedantic C99 implementations, and we ought to fix them. However, I don't think defaulting to C99 will make the problem much worse, for reasons discussed above. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
