* Paul Eggert wrote on Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 09:53:52PM CET: > > Personally, I don't advocate assuming C99 just yet -- only one C99 > compiler exists right now, as far as I know, and it's not free -- but > other people might reasonably disagree and Autoconf can cater to them > too. Also, people can assume some C99 features, if they like. It's > up to them. > > However, today I do advocate writing code that is portable to C99. > That is why it's OK to change AC_PROG_CC_STDC to prefer C99 to C89, if > both are available. People's code shouldn't assume the features of > C89 that are incompatible with C99. This is a good notion, IMVHO. Unfortunately, it conflicts with (standards.info)CPU Portability where the infamous `error' example is advocated to be used without prototype. Maybe one should try to address this as well. Regards, Ralf _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
