[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [POLL] C99, declaration after statement
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: [POLL] C99, declaration after statement |
Date: |
Sun, 25 Sep 2011 18:35:20 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.37.6-0.5-desktop; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; ) |
Paul Eggert wrote:
> if a Gnulib module requires a reasonably
> up-to-date C compiler, it might be a good idea for the module
> to AC_REQUIRE([AC_PROG_CC_STDC]).
What is the difference between AC_PROG_CC_STDC and AC_PROG_CC_C99?
As I understand it, AC_PROG_CC_STDC is a "moving target", whereas
AC_PROG_CC_C99 is not. Since the requirements of a gnulib module
should not vary depending on the version of autoconf in use, I think
AC_PROG_CC_C99 should then be preferred over AC_PROG_CC_STDC. Right?
Also, the AC_REQUIRE that you mention ought to happen early. Maybe it is
sufficient to put it in the configure.ac-early section of the module,
maybe not.
Bruno
--
In memoriam Safia Ahmed-jan <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safia_Ahmed-jan>
- Re: C99, declaration after statement, (continued)
- Re: C99, declaration after statement, Jim Meyering, 2011/09/24
- [POLL] C99, declaration after statement, Bruno Haible, 2011/09/24
- Re: [POLL] C99, declaration after statement, Eric Blake, 2011/09/24
- Re: [POLL] C99, declaration after statement, Gary V. Vaughan, 2011/09/25
- Re: [POLL] C99, declaration after statement, Paul Eggert, 2011/09/25
- Re: [POLL] C99, declaration after statement, Gary V. Vaughan, 2011/09/25
- Re: [POLL] C99, declaration after statement, Paul Eggert, 2011/09/25
- Re: [POLL] C99, declaration after statement, Gary V. Vaughan, 2011/09/25
- Re: [POLL] C99, declaration after statement, Pádraig Brady, 2011/09/25
- Re: [POLL] C99, declaration after statement, Paul Eggert, 2011/09/25
- Re: [POLL] C99, declaration after statement,
Bruno Haible <=
- Re: [POLL] C99, declaration after statement, Paul Eggert, 2011/09/25