Re: AC_C_NORETURN macro?

[Vincent Lefevre]

On 2012-04-26 09:27:08 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I've done the experiment from time to time of supporting -ansi or
> --std=c99, but even for small code bases I consider it the kind of thing
> that one does as a hobby or out of curiosity.  It's not a very good way to
> actually get work done and write code that is portable on a practical
> level (meaning that people on multiple UNIX platforms can just run
> ./configure && make).

In MPFR, we use that together with -pedantic-errors mainly for testing
purpose, to ensure that MPFR still builds on a C90 or C99 platform,
e.g. all non-portable extensions that we use should be optional.
And conversely, we do not want to require -ansi or --std=c99, because
extensions are useful for efficiency or for some special features
(e.g. logging).

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <address@hidden> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)