Re: [autoconf] Re: Enforce strict C99 in Autoconf project

[suzuki toshiya]

Although I understand that autoconf is designed for the portability
and expecting a dictionary of compiler-specific options in there
is out of the scope, I'm interested in the appropriate place to collect
such.

Recently there are several softwares that requires C99, C++0x, POSIX200x
features unexpectedly, because most GNU/Linux (and most BSD variants?)
enables such modern features by default. On the platforms where the
modern features are enabled optionally, sometimes I have to check the
availability with -std=xxx flags or -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=xxx. If there is a
right place to put reusable macros for such, I'm interested in.

Regards,
mpsuzuki

John X wrote:
> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On 05/05/2012 02:49 PM, John X wrote:
>>> How should I set up Autoconf in order to make the compiler enforce
>>> that?
>>
>> Autoconf is about making programs more portable.
>> In contrast, requiring each builder to use -pedantic would
>> make  programs less likely to compile, i.e., it'd make them
>> less portable.
>>
>> I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it's not really
>> Autoconf's goal, which is why the topic doesn't come up much
>> and why Autoconf doesn't have builtin support for this sort
>> of thing.
> 
> Thanks for the answer.
> 
> It's not that I necessarily want -pedantic, just that it should pick
> what is the most strict C99 that the compiler supports and in the case
> of gcc it would probably be something like that. But I don't know
> which options other compilers like for example clang or icc have in
> order to accomplish the same thing, I assume that they may not be
> exactly the same.
> 
> So in order to keep the program portable I would would like the
> compiler to generate warnings when various compiler-specific
> extensions is used.
> 
> - John
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf