Roger Leigh <rleigh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > + for (unsigned int i = 0; *(text+i) != '\0'; ++i); Please put a "continue" before the ";", to forestall warnings from some compilers. > +# GCC -std=gnu99 -std=c99 -std=iso9899:1999 > +# AIX -qlanglvl=extc99 -qlanglvl=stdc99 > +# Intel ICC -c99 > +# IRIX -c99 > +# Solaris -xc99 > +# Tru64 -c99 > +for ac_arg in "" -std=gnu99 -std=c99 -std=iso9899:1999 -c99 -xc99 -qlanglvl=extc99 -qlanglvl=stdc99 Why do we need to try 3 options for GCC? Wouldn't "-std=gnu99" do? If possible, I'd rather not try "-std=c99" or "-std=iso9899:1999" (which are aliases), since it might cause the compiler to become restrictive or pedantic. This is why the existing _AC_PROG_CC_STDC doesn't try "gcc -ansi". Similarly, for AIX I'd rather not try -qlanglvl=stdc99 since -qlanglvl=extc99 does what we want. Come to think of it, the existing macro should use -qlanglvl=extc89 instead of -qlanglvl=ansi; I'll make that change now. I just checked the Solaris documentation <http://docs.sun.com/source/817-6697/cc_ops.app.html>, and "-xc99" differs from the default behavior only in that it causes the compiler to assume C99 semantics for library functions. But I would think that this an unnecessary and perhaps even dangerous option in Solaris up through Solaris 9 (the current version -- Solaris 10 has been announced but it isn't shipping yet), since its standard C library implements C89 semantics, not C99. So I'd rather omit -xc99 here. (You could put in a comment to that effect.) Thanks for your work here. Please let me know when the paperwork is done, so that I can install the change and we can get it tested. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
