Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99

[Roger Leigh]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Paul Eggert <address@hidden> writes:

> Roger Leigh <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> +** AC_PROG_CC_C89, AC_PROG_CC_C99
>> +  New macros for ISO C99 support.  _AC_PROG_CC_STDC has been renamed
>> +  to AC_PROG_CC_C89.  The shell variable ac_cv_prog_cc_stdc has been
>> +  renamed to ac_cv_prog_cc_c89 to reflect its more precise role.
>
> A small point: NEWS should be written from the user's viewpoint, but
> _AC_PROG_CC_STDC isn't user-visible.  Can you please reword this
> appropriately?

Done.

>> -Paul Eggert notes that: ISO C 1999 says that @file{inttypes.h} includes
>> address@hidden, so there's no need to include @file{stdint.h}
>> +Paul Eggert notes that: @acronym{ISO} C 1999 says that @file{inttypes.h}
>> +includes @file{stdint.h}, so there's no need to include @file{stdint.h}
>
> "ISO" is not an acronym, so we shouldn't use @acronym for it.  I
> suppose we could use @sc instead, though after the next release of
> Texinfo it might be better to use @abbr.  ("ANSI" is an acronym so it
> is right to use @acronym for it.)

I changed "@acronym{ISO}" to "ISO".

>> +If the C compiler is not in @acronym{ANSI} C89 (@acronym{ISO} C90) mode
>> ...
>> +If the C compiler is not in @acronym{ISO} C99 C mode by default, try to
>
> C mode -> mode

Done.

>> +if it handles _Bool, flexible arrays, inline, long long, mixed code and
>> +declarations, named initialization of structs, restrict, varargs macros,
>> +variable declarations in for loops and variable length arrays.
>
> _Bool, inline, long long, restrict, and for should be in @code{...}.

Done.

>> @@ -1246,7 +1435,7 @@
>>  AC_DEFUN([AC_C_PROTOTYPES],
>>  [AC_REQUIRE([AC_PROG_CC])dnl
>>  AC_MSG_CHECKING([for function prototypes])
>> -if test "$ac_cv_prog_cc_stdc" != no; then
>> +if test "$ac_cv_prog_cc_c89" != no; then
>>    AC_MSG_RESULT([yes])
>>    AC_DEFINE(PROTOTYPES, 1,
>>          [Define to 1 if the C compiler supports function prototypes.])
>
> I don't see why this change is needed.  It seems harmful, since it will
> cause C99 compilers to appear to not support prototypes.

This is correct (it's due to $ac_cv_prog_cc_stdc being renamed to
$ac_cv_prog_cc_c89).

AC_PROG_CC currently only checks for C89 compliance (using
_AC_PROG_CC_C89), and so only $ac_cv_prog_cc_c89 is known to be
defined.  If you like, AC_PROG_CC could be changed, or this macro
could AC_REQUIRE AC_PROG_CC_STDC instead of AC_PROG_CC.

> Also, I don't recall any response to my December 2 message
> <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2004-12/msg00040.html>;
> could you please take a look at the issues that it mentions too?

Sorry, I forgot about that one.  I've taken care of those issues as well.

> If you have time to prepare a revised patch, please CC: it to
> address@hidden  Otherwise, just let me know and I'd like to
> install your patch as best I can.  Thanks.

A new patch is attached.


Happy New Year!
Roger

(PS.  I'm not subscribed to autoconf-patches, so I'd appreciate a CC
for any replies.  Thanks!)

- -- 
Roger Leigh
                Printing on GNU/Linux?  http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
                Debian GNU/Linux        http://www.debian.org/
                GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848.  Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQFB1sQpVcFcaSW/uEgRAuNDAJ9mZxCzYLbBNscArh1pbu2DPRqQ8QCg33R2
obvQXbOSYeuFMCqEII7o/6w=
=UNJY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

rl-autoconf-c99-4.diff
Description: Autoconf C99 patch rev 4