Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99

[Paul Eggert]

Roger Leigh <address@hidden> writes:

> Paul, the FSF have received the copyright assignment (Ted Teah said it
> would be processed after the new year).

Thanks!

> +** 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?

> -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.)

> +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

> +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{...}.

> @@ -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.

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?

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.

Thanks.