Re: Selecting a C++ standard

[Russ Allbery]

Adrian Bunk <address@hidden> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 06:45:01PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> Almost none of the software that I work on requires a 64-bit integer type.
>> (C89 or later is also my default target for the software I write.)

> I just tried to build remctl and lbcd with CC="gcc -pedantic-errors",
> and both failed due to them not being pure C89 (some errors are at the
> bottom of this email).

Which version of remctl was this?  The trailing comma in enums was a bug,
but it was already fixed in both 3.3 and in the current master.  I checked
just now with that flag, and remctl builds apart from the string length
issue (once one undoes Autoconf's detection of C99 variadic macro
support).

This:

> server/remctld.c:53:1: error: string length ‘610’ is greater than the length 
> ‘509’ ISO C90 compilers are required to support [-Woverlength-strings]

I do indeed intentionally ignore since I've never seen a system (including
otherwise C89 systems, and even older systems) that actually failed to
compile long string constants.  This limit was in the standard mostly
for microcontroller and other free-standing platforms th

These:

> ./check_reply.c:28:10: error: initializer element is not computable at load 
> time
> ./http.c:35:12: error: initializer element is not computable at load time
> ./monlist.c:86:10: error: initializer element is not computable at load time

are indeed all bugs.  lbcd is software that I didn't originally write and
just finished adopting, and I hadn't done a -pedantic-errors pass on it
yet.  I appreciate the note; I'll go and fix those now.

-- 
Russ Allbery (address@hidden)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>