On 09/29/11 02:14, Bruno Haible wrote: > But switching the compiler to a different standards-compliance > mode is a global effect. I was not sure whether it would have some negative > side effects on some platforms. > > On the other hand, we do it in module 'stdarg' for 5 years now, and it has > not caused bug reports.
I agree on both points. I think the only thing that's saved us is that most gnulib-using projects already ask for C99 compatibility if available, for the usual reasons. On 09/28/11 22:28, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > The patch is very straight forward: > > AC_DEFUN([AC_PROG_CC_C99], [ > ... > m4_define([AC_PROG_CC_C99]) > ]) I don't think the autoconf patch would be that easy, as one would need to handle a mixture of AC_PROG_CC_C99, AC_PROG_CC_C89, and AC_PROG_CC_STDC calls. Again, I expect the only thing that's saved us is that people just use AC_PROG_CC_STDC. Hmm, maybe Autoconf should deprecate the other two macros?
