On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 08:36:17 -0800 Paul Eggert <eggert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 02/02/2013 05:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > In order to solve that properly, I would like to request having two new > > macros in autoconf: AC_PROG_CC_GNU89 and AC_PROG_CC_GNU99, in a similar > > manner to the AC_PROG_CC_C99 macro. > > We've been moving in the opposite direction: > AC_PROG_CC_STDC, AC_PROG_CC_C89 and AC_PROG_CC_C99 will be marked as > obsolescent in the next version of Autoconf. The idea > is that AC_PROG_CC should "just work", and maintainers > shouldn't have to fiddle with all those AC_PROG_CC_whatever > macros whenever a new compiler comes out. > > Can you give an example of a package that has a problem, > and symptoms of the problem? That might help us come up with > a better solution. For example, what happens if you configure > with "./configure CC='clang -std=gnu11'"? The major issue we've been having is difference in inline semantics between gnu89 and c99. It hit us at least with libgcrypt [1,2], pkg-config [3,4], e2fsprogs [5]. The usual way of fixing it on our side was appending 'std=gnu89' or a similar option. But I believe configure scripts should handle this for us... [1]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=420899 [2]:https://bugs.g10code.com/gnupg/issue1406 [3]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=297248 [4]:https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29313 [5]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=297243 -- Best regards, Michał Górny
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
