Paul Eggert wrote: ... > Yes, on further thought I'm inclined to agree. Also, it's a lot > simpler. Also, it fixes Jim's bug. There's a lot to like. > Please see the patch below, which I've pushed. Further > comments welcome. > >>From f7fe375b26f39d0a6624ad9a6c532d9361a3226b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Paul Eggert <egg...@cs.ucla.edu> > Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 19:19:54 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH] AC_PROG_CC_C89, AC_PROG_CC_C99: now obsolete; defer to > AC_PROG_CC > > * NEWS: > * doc/autoconf.texi (C Compiler, Running the Preprocessor) > (Limitations of Usual Tools, Present But Cannot Be Compiled) > (Obsolete Macros): > Document the changes described below. > * lib/autoconf/c.m4 (_AC_PROG_CC_FORCE_VERSION): Remove. > (AC_PROG_CC_C89, AC_PROG_CC_C99, AC_PROG_CC_STDC): > Just do AC_PROG_CC, but mark as obsolete. This replaces my recent > ill-advised attempt to let AC_PROG_CC_C89 and AC_PROG_CC_C99 downgrade > the version of C supported. > * doc/autoconf.texi (Limitations of Usual Tools, Volatile Objects): > Document C11 more accurately. In some cases this involves removing > some details about 'volatile', alas, since C11 changed this stuff. > Again.
Nice work. Solves my problem. Thanks!
