On 06/12/2010 09:07 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote: > On Friday 11 June 2010, Ruediger Pluem wrote: >>> Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in >>> URL: >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in?rev= >>> 951893&r1=951892&r2=951893&view=diff >>> ================================================================ >>> ============== --- httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in (original) >>> +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in Sun Jun 6 16:54:51 2010 >>> @@ -170,6 +170,9 @@ dnl PCRE and for our config tests will b >>> >>> AC_PROG_CC >>> AC_PROG_CPP >>> >>> >>> +dnl Try to get c99 support for variadic macros >>> +AC_PROG_CC_C99 >>> + >> This test is only present since autoconf >= 2.60. >> Since 2.59 is still delivered with RedHat 4 / 5 this does not work >> there, but the error is non fatal. > > This means it is not a good idea to run buildconf on RH4/5, but a > configure created somewhere else with autoconf 2.60 should work fine. > So this mainly affects httpd developers. > > We can either bump AC_PREREQ to 2.60, making it impossible to run > buildconf on RH4/5, or we can include the code for AC_PROG_CC_C99 > (about 200 lines) from autoconf 2.60 in httpd's build system. The > current state seems like a bad idea, because of the potential to ship > a broken configure in release tarballs. > > Preferences? Is anyone here developing on RHEL?
I do so partly. This is why I came across this :-). What does AC_PROG_CC_C99 really do? Not that I am suggesting to remove this call from configure.in but what does it do? Does it change compiler parameters such that the compiler is switched into C99 mode? If yes isn't gcc by default? So if this is true my idea would be if it would be possible to just call AC_PROG_CC_C99 if autoconf is >= 2.60. Regards Rüdiger
