On Thu, Nov 10, 2022, at 10:08 PM, Sam James wrote:
>> On 10 Nov 2022, at 21:10, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> While everyone else is discussing big ideas, it would be helpful for me
>> personally if autoconf just made a release with the latest bugfixes.
>
> Before I dive into the rest of this
> On 11 Nov 2022, at 03:25, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022, at 10:18 PM, Sam James wrote:
>>> On 5 Nov 2022, at 22:37, Sam James wrote:
>>>
>>> I would send a patch for the original issue but I'm wondering how to handle
>>> freestanding (see big comment above
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022, at 10:18 PM, Sam James wrote:
>> On 5 Nov 2022, at 22:37, Sam James wrote:
>>
>> I would send a patch for the original issue but I'm wondering how to handle
>> freestanding (see big comment above _AC_C_C89_TEST_GLOBALS).
Yeah, we can't include here, but it should be OK
> On 5 Nov 2022, at 22:37, Sam James wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 5 Nov 2022, at 05:07, Sam James wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> When working on Clang 16 (and presumably GCC 14) porting [0], I noticed the
>> following
>> when building GNU grep 3.8:
>> ```
>> configure:6215: checking for clang-16 option
> On 10 Nov 2022, at 21:10, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2022-11-10 at 12:16 -0500, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>>
>> Nobody has a whole lot of time to work on Autoconf at present, but I
>> would like to ask, anyway, what Autoconf could potentially do to make
>> this transition easier.
>
>
* Rich Felker:
> I've been writing/complaining about autoconf doing this wrong for
> decades, with the best writeup around 9 years ago at
> https://ewontfix.com/13/. Part of the reason is that this has bitten
> musl libc users over and over again due to configure finding symbols
> that were
On Thu, 2022-11-10 at 12:16 -0500, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
> Nobody has a whole lot of time to work on Autoconf at present, but I
> would like to ask, anyway, what Autoconf could potentially do to make
> this transition easier.
While everyone else is discussing big ideas, it would be helpful for
On 2022-11-10 10:19, Aaron Ballman wrote:
In terms of the Clang side of things, I don't think we've formed any
sort of official stance on how to handle that yet. It's UB (you can
declare the C standard library interface without UB but calling any
function with a mismatched signature is UB)
The
On 2022-11-10 09:16, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Changes to handle C23 built-in ‘bool’ better are under development but
the design has not yet been finalized.
[I'm cc'ing this to bug-gnulib too.]
To my mind this is the biggest outstanding issue in Autoconf as far as
C23 goes, as the upgrade path
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 12:16 PM Zack Weinberg via cfe-commits
wrote:
>
> I’m the closest thing Autoconf has to a lead maintainer at present.
>
> It’s come to my attention (via https://lwn.net/Articles/913505/ and
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PortingToModernC) that GCC and
> Clang
On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 17:58, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 17:52, Nick Bowler wrote:
> > It saddens me to see so much breakage happening in "modern C", a
> > language that has (until now) a long history of new language features
> > being carefully introduced to avoid these
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 12:16:20PM -0500, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I’m the closest thing Autoconf has to a lead maintainer at present.
>
> It’s come to my attention (via https://lwn.net/Articles/913505/ and
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PortingToModernC) that GCC and
> Clang both plan to
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 1:12 PM Jonathan Wakely via cfe-commits
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 17:58, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 17:52, Nick Bowler wrote:
> > > It saddens me to see so much breakage happening in "modern C", a
> > > language that has (until now) a
On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 17:52, Nick Bowler wrote:
> It saddens me to see so much breakage happening in "modern C", a
> language that has (until now) a long history of new language features
> being carefully introduced to avoid these sort of problems.
The features were introduced in 1999. Compilers
On Thu, 10 Nov 2022, Zack Weinberg wrote:
The biggest remaining (potential) problem, that I’m aware of, is that
AC_CHECK_FUNC unconditionally declares the function we’re probing for
as ‘char NAME (void)’, and asks the compiler to call it with no
arguments, regardless of what its prototype
* Zack Weinberg via Gcc:
> I’m the closest thing Autoconf has to a lead maintainer at present.
>
> It’s come to my attention (via https://lwn.net/Articles/913505/ and
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PortingToModernC) that GCC and
> Clang both plan to disable several “legacy” C language
On 2022-11-10, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> The biggest remaining (potential) problem, that I’m aware of, is that
> AC_CHECK_FUNC unconditionally declares the function we’re probing for
> as ‘char NAME (void)’, and asks the compiler to call it with no
> arguments, regardless of what its prototype
I’m the closest thing Autoconf has to a lead maintainer at present.
It’s come to my attention (via https://lwn.net/Articles/913505/ and
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PortingToModernC) that GCC and
Clang both plan to disable several “legacy” C language features by
default in a near-future
This fixes all of the remaining failures exposed by running the
testsuite with GCC 12 and
CC='cc -Wimplicit-function-declaration -Wold-style-definition
-Wimplicit-int -Werror'
.
* lib/autoconf/c.m4 (_AC_C_C89_TEST_GLOBALS): Don’t use K function
definitions.
* lib/autoconf/specific.m4
19 matches
Mail list logo
