Adrian Bunk writes: > On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 10:47:50PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > > Maybe have an optional argument to AC_PROG_CC_STDC to select > > the standard e.g. > > AC_PROG_CC_STDC([C99]) > > ? I like this idea. > Latest discussion result was that there is no downside of setting the > compiler to the highest mode possible. Then that discussion was incomplete. If I must ensure that a package requires a given "level" of STDC, then configure MUST NOT decide any other "level" is OK. > And as said above, feature testing is a separate issue. that doesn't mean it is by definition OK to ignore this point. > > I originally wrote AC_PROC_CC_C99 because it was several years > > since GCC supported C99, but there was no portable way to use > > C99 features with projects using autoconf unless you added > > horrible hacks. We still have this situation for C++, and it > > would be nice to solve it in a similar way to C. I'm happy to > > go with the new approach of a single macro, but I would be > > interested to understand how the issues I outlined above square > > with this. > > The main worry would actually be whether a compiler in C++11 mode might > reject any existing C++03 code. I submit you are still ignoring the other side of the problem, which says "Make sure I am using a C++03 compiler so I can be sure that the package builds with a C++03 compiler if that is all *somebody else* has." H _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
