On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 04:10:29PM +0300, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 06:12:55PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> >> On 09/27/2012 10:04 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >> > I merely wanted to point out that there can be a difference in what
> >> > glibc provides when we end up with gnu99 instead of gnu11.
> >>
> >> Yes. And programs using Autoconf will surely prefer the gnu11
> >> version, which is why defaulting to gnu11 is a win.
> >>...
> >
> > Which brings us back to why I call it a bug that gnu99 passes the
> > current C11 test.
>
> Exuse me, but if compiler+language support library passes all feature
> checks, which are essencial to name this pair c11-compatible, then why
> bother?
>
> If c11-compatibility implies more than these checks, then why not
> extend the checks for cover these essencial features?
>
> But please, dont start the messing with brain-dameged defines like
> __STDC_VERSION__. After all, Autoconf is all about the actual
> features of compilation environment, not about "branding labels" on
> that environment.
C11 compatibility implies the correct __STDC_VERSION__ value.
And as I already explained here in this thread the __STDC_VERSION__
value set by the compiler does matter, e.g. with glibc it enables some
C11 functionality in the C library.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
